Discussion about this post

User's avatar
David Denkenberger's avatar

If it were free, more food storage would make us more resilient to catastrophes. The problem is that to store up five years of food for 7 billion people would cost tens of trillions of dollars (not to mention the fact that it would not protect us if the catastrophe hit soon, and storing fast would cause many more people to starve in the near term). What I am talking about is spending tens of millions of dollars for planning, targeted research and development, so that we are ready to quickly scale up alternate foods.

Expand full comment
Brian Slesinsky's avatar

I ran across an interesting article [1] that reminded me of this topic. A few quotes from it.

"Never has the world produced so much more food than can be consumed in one season. World ending stocks of total grains - the leftover supplies before a new harvest - have climbed for four straight years and are poised to reach a record 638 million tonnes in 2016/17, according to USDA data.

[...]

"China’s stockpiling policies, enacted in 2007 when corn supplies were tight, also stimulated oversupply. Aiming for self-sufficiency in grains, Beijing bought virtually the entire domestic crop each year and paid farmers as much as 60 percent more than global prices.

"The program stuffed Chinese warehouses with some 250 million tonnes of corn by the time Beijing scrapped it last year. China is now boosting incentives for farmers to switch to soybeans from corn.

“The world’s corn is mainly in China,” said Li Qiang, chief consultant at Shanghai JC Intelligence Co Ltd.

"He said it will take three to four years for stocks to reach a “normal” level of around 40-50 million tonnes.

So, I guess the capacity is there to grow and store large amounts of grain, but the question for people worried about nuclear winter or similar disasters is how to convince governments that storing this amount of grain and expanding storage (rather than cutting it back as wasteful excess) is something they should keep doing, on purpose?

[1] http://www.reuters.com/arti...

Expand full comment
37 more comments...