// archives

Third World

This tag is associated with 2 posts

Frog in the Pot

15 Jul 13

A Frog in the Pot

By Gwynne Dyer

If you drop a frog in a pot of boiling water, so they say, it will hop right out again. Frogs aren’t stupid. Well, okay, but they’re not THAT stupid.

However, if you put a frog in a pot of cool water, and gradually turn the heat up under it, the frog will not notice what’s happening. It will happily sit there until the water boils, and it dies.

Now, I have never carried out this experiment personally – I prefer my frogs’ legs fried – so I can’t vouch for the truth of it. It’s just a story the environmentalists like to tell. Besides, I already knew that human beings have trouble in detecting slow-moving threats. You can watch us failing to do it every day: we persistently ignore the fact that we are running into trouble at a civilisational level, even though the evidence is all around us.

The foundation of every civilisation is an adequate food supply: human beings simply cannot live at the density of population that civilisation implies without a reliable agriculture. But the supply of good agricultural land is limited, and the number of human beings is not.

You can postpone the problem for a while by increasing the yield of the available land: irrigate it, plant higher-yielding crops, fertilise the soil artificially, use pesticides and herbicides to protect the crops as they grow. But even these techniques have limits, and in many cases we have reached or exceeded them. So we are running into trouble. Why isn’t anybody taking action?

Governments everywhere are well aware of the problem: we are now 7 billion people, heading for an estimated 11 billion by the end of this century, and the food situation is already getting tight. So tight, in fact, that the average price of the major food grains has doubled in the past ten years. But everybody finds local reasons to ignore that fact.

The developing countries know that they are under the gun, because the standard predictions of global warming suggest that it is the tropics and the sub-tropics where the warming will hit food production first and hardest.

A (still unpublished) study carried out by the World Bank some years ago concluded that India (all of which is in the tropics or sub-tropics) would lose 25 percent of its food production when the average global temperature is only 2 degrees C higher. China would lose an astounding 38 percent, even though most of it is in the temperate zone. And all that is before their underground water sources are pumped dry.

Most governments in the developing countries know the facts, but the short-term political imperative to raise living standards takes precedence over the longer-term imperative to curb the warming. So headlong industrialisation wins the policy debate every time, and we’ll worry about the food supply later.

The developed world’s governments do nothing, because until recently they secretly believed that the catastrophe would mostly hit countries in the former Third World. That would unleash waves of climate refugees, plus local wars and a proliferation of failed states, but the rich countries reckoned that they would still be able to feed themselves – and their military could hold the other problems at bay.

But what is becoming clear, just in the past few years, is that the developed countries will also have trouble feeding themselves. Part of the problem is that many of them depend heavily on underground aquifers for irrigation, and the water is running out.

It’s running out even faster in China, India and the Middle East: for example, grain production has dropped by a third in Iraq and Syria in the past ten years. But it is hitting the big producers in the developed countries, too, and especially the United States.

For example, the amount of irrigated land in Texas has dropped by 37 percent since 1975. The amount in Kansas has fallen by nearly 30 percent in the past three years. And now it is becoming clear that the impact of warming will also be much greater than anticipated in the developed countries.

In these countries, the problem is extreme weather causing massive floods and prolonged droughts – like the heat wave that hit grain production in the US Midwest last summer, or the coldest spring in 50 years in England, which has cut wheat yields by a third.

Combine the steep fall in irrigation, the crop losses to wild weather, and the diversion of large amounts of cropland to grow “biofuels” instead of food, and it is not at all certain that the developed world will be able to grow enough food for its own citizens in five or ten years time. So are the leaders of these countries launching crash programmes to stop the warming, cut down on water losses and end the lunacy of biofuels?

Of course not. The smarter ones just reckon that since their countries will still be rich, they will buy up whatever food is available elsewhere and feed their own people that way. It will be other people, in other countries, who go hungry.

And the slower ones? They’re just frogs.

____________________________________

To shorten to 725 words, omit paragraphs 5 and 8. (“You can…ready”; and “A still…dry”).

 

 

Immigrants in America

9 April 2006

Immigrants in America

By Gwynne Dyer

Two things about American immigration are different. One is that the United States is the only large First World country that has a long land border with a Third World country. The other is that only the United States among developed countries possesses a politically powerful domestic lobby that actively wants a large, steady flow of unskilled immigrants, preferably illegal ones. Taken together, these two oddities explain why immigration in America is such an explosive topic, and why Congress is unable to pass any new law regulating the flow.

The collapse last Friday of bipartisan negotiations in the Senate on a new immigration bill probably marks an end for this year of the attempt to impose some order on what many Americans see as out-of-control illegal immigration. What split both parties and ultimately doomed the law

were President Bush’s proposals for an amnesty for nine million of the estimated eleven million illegal immigrants already in the United States, and a new programme to admit an extra 400,000 temporary “guest workers” every year.

The House of Representatives recently passed a much tougher law involving serious penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants and the construction of a 700-mile (1100-km.) fence along much of the Mexican border, but with Congress now in recess for two weeks, that is probably dead too. There is probably neither the time nor the political will for the Senate to have another go at the issue before the elections that are due this November.

What this is all about is Mexicans. The United States, contrary to local belief, does not have a particularly high proportion of recent immigrants compared to other industrialised countries. No more than one person in eight is foreign-born in the US, considerably less than in neighbouring Canada (where the ratio is one in five) and not much more than in large European countries like Germany, France or Britain. But nowhere else has so many illegal immigrants, nor so many who are unskilled workers, nor such a high share from a single country.

Mexican nationals make up the great majority of the “undocumented workers” (illegal immigrants) in the US economy. Their large numbers and high visibility give rise to paranoid fears among some longer established Americans that the United States is becoming a de facto bilingual country. They also stir a wider concern that this large and vulnerable work-force of illegal immigrants is deliberately maintained by employers as a way of keeping the wages of unskilled workers down.

The language issue is largely a red herring: most newly arrived Hispanic families have become fluent in English by the second generation, just as previous waves of immigrants did before them. But the argument that illegal immigrants take jobs away from many equally unskilled native-born Americans, and drive wages down for the rest, has never been convincingly refuted, even though it remains politically incorrect.

It’s not that native-born American high-school drop-outs “won’t do those jobs.” They just won’t do them for five or eight dollars an hour — or at least, a lot of them won’t. Many poor Americans simply have no choice, however, and end up working long hours in miserable jobs for half the money that an unskilled French or German worker would earn for doing the same work.

Illegal immigrants are not a majority of the workers in most of the fields where they find jobs; unskilled Americans are. (The only job in which there are almost no native-born Americans is seasonal agricultural stoop labour.) Professors George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of the National Bureau of Economic Research recently calculated that the real wages of US high-school dropouts would have ended up eight percent higher in 1980-2000 if unskilled (and mostly illegal) Mexican workers had been kept out, even if higher-skilled immigration had continued at the existing rate.

One of the most ridiculous myths of American political discourse is the argument that the US-Mexican frontier is too long to police effectively and humanely. Here is a country that has landed people on the Moon, and that currently maintains an army of 140,000 soldiers in a hostile country halfway around the planet, claiming that it cannot build and maintain a decent fence along the Mexican border. Instead, we have been treated to a thirty-year political charade in which little bits of fence are built in the traditional urban crossing places, thus forcing illegal Mexican immigrants out into the desert where many of them die — but enough still get through to keep America’s low-wage industries fully manned.

Living right next to Mexico, a country where a large proportion of the population lives in Third-World conditions, does create a special immigration problem for the United States, but it is far from insoluble. It has only remained unsolved for decades because powerful economic interests in the United States, with great influence over Congress, do not want it solved.

All the other business that has been so earnestly debated in recent week in the United States Senate — quotas for guest-workers, amnesties for long-resident illegal immigrants, and so on — is just the political cover that is needed to keep illegal immigrant labour plentiful and unskilled wages low.

_______________________________

To shorten to 725 words, omit paragraph 8. (“Illegal immigrants…existing rate”)