Trade’s the way to guarantee food supplies

Farmers across Europe are warning of a slump in food production and rising prices as crops from maize to salads suffer as a result of extreme heat, drought and wildfires.

Sounds bad, very bad.

The vegetable growers association Légumes de France has warned….In Spain, the ministry of agriculture predicts….The European Union has cut harvest predictions…..The UK harvest has also been hit by ongoing droughts …

Our word, disaster.

On the other hand, in the same story:

However, some countries have been less badly hit than others with Romania, for example, seeing more rainfall and Italy’s wheat crop proving resilient…..The UK harvest has also been hit by ongoing droughts with wholesalers saying they are having to turn to Spain and elsewhere for mainstay items such as iceberg lettuce and broccoli while British farmers have warned of shortages.

And that’s the secret, isn’t it? Weather is local, weather that affects food production is local, therefore security of supply is gained by getting food from multiple local areas affected by different local weathers. Trade.

We can go further too. Say that they’re right about this climate change thing. Weather is going to become more variable in each local area - this is indeed one of the predictions. That means that we must gain our food from many more local areas, local weathers, in order to have a consistent supply. The worse climate change is the more we not just desire but insist upon more trade in food. Climate change itself, that is, is the one single argument against local self-sufficiency in food.

Isn’t it just so delightfully odd that those most vocal on this subject - or twin subjects, climate change and food supply - make exactly the opposite argument? That as weather changes, becomes more variable, we should rely ever more on the few acres immediately surrounding our own position and thereby suffer greatly increased risk of no food at all?

Tim Worstall