Home | About | Donate

10 Million at Risk of Hunger Due to Climate Change and El Niño, Oxfam Warns


10 Million at Risk of Hunger Due to Climate Change and El Niño, Oxfam Warns

Tharanga Yakupitiyage

At least ten million of the poorest people face food insecurity in 2015 and 2016 due to extreme weather conditions and the onset of El Niño, Oxfam has reported.


Yes, it’s here…yes, it’s now…no, it won’t go away…we may see an increase of rain and snow in the western part of usa but Africa??? The central valley of California may recover a bit but who knows…mass migrations due to unstable governments and shifting climate changes, the stalling/stopping of the north atlantic pump and the dying of the pacific due to japan’s radiation…all of this and all our government can talk about is Planned Parenthood…the guvmint needs to get out of the way and let Oxfam run the show, I trust them a Whole Lot More…but now we have the New Manual of WAR


Let’s remember to address overpopulation at every turn as local carrying capacities have been clearly stretched beyond measure and global carrying capacity is being stressed far beyond comfort (especially by Western standards [Oh hell, it’s way gone by them.]). Planet = finite. Current economic model = bullshit.


I agree but what human institution, organization, or belief system is even remotely equipped to address the human population crisis? Francis is on the right side of history on many issues, but remains a loyal antagonist on the wrong side of this most very important one. He won’t even budge from the Church’s longstanding position that birth control (the prevention of fertilization) = abortion. A Catholic scientist critiquing Francis encyclical on the environment in Skeptical Inquirer magazine speculated that the Pope didn’t address birth control because that would have drawn all the attention and completely overshadowed his important words on the climate crisis. That may be so, but in the long run is not helpful in the least.


But the pope said to have more children!

I’m so confused.


It takes 17 acres of land to support one meat eater and only 1 acre of land to support a vegetarian. Therefore, it is misleading to talk about overpopulation without distinguishing between meat eaters and vegetarians. The world is overpopulated with meat eaters; it is not overpopulated with vegetarians.


I wholly agree, but if we consider the work of Piketty and truly wish to make a fairer world, the standards of living in those countries need to rise (with a concomitant lowering of developed countries). Overpopulation along with excessive wastefulness in the developed countries are at odds with creating a fairer world. Tough choices need to be made.


The only revolution that fits the problem as you have defined it is the personal one. And please don’t dismiss the idea that it can be contagious.


I disagree. Politics gets in the way. But there is enough for everyone. Unequal distribution is a big problem, but what is often overlooked is that breathing, drinking, eating, peeing, shitting, farting and having sex are all organic activities. Industrial production is the problem. And every other species has its numbers naturally curtailed by the environment…


How weird it is that so many leftish people talk about overpopulation as if they were eugenicists. Most likely they don’t realize how they sound. Sure overpopulation is a problem but at the moment there is no reasonable solution to it and we have to deal with the situation as it is. We live in an overpopulated world and there is nothing to be done about that in the short term. Once we fix or at least better the global warming situation then overpopulation will be the primary issue. It gets real hard to forcefully keep people from having families. A two child limit seems easy and logical but hard to implement. So what exactly are people talking about when they speak of overpopulation? What is their solution? Frighteningly some even advocate sterilizing the poor. Yikes!

How about we focus on creating an alternative fuel world, allowing the oceans to return to fertility by moratoriums on fishing until stocks are replenished, stop using the oceans as a toxic waste dump, stop depleting aquifers by wasteful agricultural practices and making for ourselves a world that can support 12 billion folks (which is where we will be ending up one way or the other someday). We can keep forests and jungles (some of them anyway), have oceans full of fish, grow tons of food and all the rest but not if we continue doing things the way we do them now.

The way we have always done things worked except that it was when we had far fewer people. In short we have twice as many people for the extract to the limit practices we have always used. Fish out all the fish from one area used to work but we’ve run out of new areas to fish. We need to develop a more efficient capitalism before we start hearing some fascistic morons actually begin talking real eugenics like from a century ago. That dystopia we need to avoid. 10 million at risk of hunger can become a 100 million at risk of hunger really fast and with worse to come.

Fix the present and the future will take care of itself.


I have found that unfortunately most people who take that view don’t really want to “poison their minds” all that much with greater concerns for humanity as in the fight against the current power paradigm that eats these peoples’ futures while they sleep.


That’s a common view, but human history is strewn with good intentions for others that have led us to this hell. Personally I can’t believe in any ‘formula’ - being a progressive, having faith in left-wing ideology or such. Reality is the sum of EVERYONE’S input (and more). So a plan, formula or scheme might sound great in your own mind but there is the small matter of the rest of the human race with all their ideas to take ito account. Your (as in one’s) great plan becomes a source of conflict in the bigger picture. Just look at the world! Dropping the set ideas lets you converse with anyone and reduces conflict. The question is which approach might offer something new as opposed to which has been tried a thousand times and failed a thousand times. I think Eistein had something to say about trying the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result. In any case, openly opposing TPTB only feeds their ploy of frightening people with the potential breakdown of society. (Chance would be a fine thing!)


Huh. So there aren’t examples in this world where a “formula” has worked well for most of the people? Nordic countries perhaps?

Which set of ideas is getting in the way? The set of ideas of the would-be oligarchs? The set of ideas of the would-be controller of all of the world’s seed crops? The set of ideas that leads to a surveillance State of unprecedented scope? The set of ideas that constitutes war making for profit? The set of ideas that determines power relationships among the few at the expense of the many? The set of ideas that has so far been victorious such that a system of healthcare for profit reigns supreme in the US?

So the solution is what? To simply not discuss what are the best ideas to benefit the most human beings on this Earth as a source of conflict reduction?

What, those fighting for peace, justice, and an equitable society should do so not “openly” but in the closet reading a self help book?

No thanks.


I totally agree with your points. However, I am not a one-issue person; I comment on many issues in this forum. However, when someone points out that overpopulation is a problem, it should be noted that some people - vegans and vegetarians - use much less of the earth’s resources than do other people. Thus, the word “overpopulation” can be misleading. I would also like to point out that when someone says there are so many problems in the world that they cannot possibly worry about animal rights, they need to understand that animal agriculture does produce over half of all greenhouse gases. Thus, the environmental destruction caused by agribusiness is not just an animal rights issue; it is the number one issue facing humankind. The current rate of meat production is unsustainable and if it continues much longer the greenhouse gases generated by that industry will cause great human misery, to put it mildly. Accordingly, it is not an issue so small that it need not be considered. Quite the contrary, it is the number one issue relating to human survival and it needs to be placed before the public as the number one issue facing the world. Other issues are also important, but they are all secondary to the problem that is killing the earth and all of its inhabitants. That observation does not make me a one-issue contributor. I have noticed, however, that many other contributors to this forum really hate it when I mention what the number one problem is. It seems to drive them nuts. One contributor actually asked me this question: What is the connection between not eating meat and saving the planet? :disappointed_relieved::pray:


Just a post script…our Mother, our Planet we call Earth, with what it is doing, and with our misguided help, will rid it’s self of this infestation called human’s…it has nothing to do with anyone’s agenda, left or right or upside down…imagine your living space filled with cock roaches, what do we do? Mother is cleaning house, even under our bed’s…the NGO’s of our mind-set may be able to assist in saving a few of us but not all…I’m 64, the world’s population has Doubled in my life time and now I sit here watching Mama starting to clean the house…storms, droughts, floods, high tides and green grass (as the R/S put it) anything and everything is at Her disposal, you can run but you cannot hide…maybe if you invite Oxfam or other’s like them in for cawfee and cakes and some money and offer to help in anyway you can, you and yours may(?) survive.


Exactly, the USA especially… but, yet, I would like to say, maybe a certain economic sphere in the US should be what needs to have some rules and well, discipline… like take away all their money leave them just enough, like what I have… of course, that would lead to us having to develop REALLY LOCAL ECONOMIES… and the end of globalization… that would be a little more on target… I mean… hell, my foot print is not any where as big as say, someone who makes about 4 or more times as I make… the worse thing I do, is drive to far to work. I work like to add, I handed in my resignation… however, my boss, so far, has not accepted it… ??? I am not very confident about resigning… however, it is not my mind that wants/needs to do so… it’s my spirit and my health… I can barely do my job anymore… I have a co worker, who pretty much understands these issues. His phrase is “We need a “benevolent despot”… (He’s a Leo)… he’s kidding of course… but, his point is that someone who would be able to put a stop to all the things that are not necessary… I’ve mentioned them here many times… but it is the “frivolous” part of our economy. So, now I"ve got a bunch of people yelling and saying… “Who determines what’s frivolous?” … I’d say it’s pretty simple… Just look at how indigenous people who haven’t been converted to modern life, yet… live in their habitat. …Just read up on hunter gatherer life styles… their practices… I just learned of how the tribes that were indigenous tribes in California, used to take care of their environment… the forests of California… they had practices that were not destructive. They were truly stewards… I also just heard a quote by Chief ( I forgot) but there are letters with from him to “Chief Washington”… He said ,” When the white man came, it was the end of living and the beginning of surviving." I do not think we have much time left… I’d like to say that if we could stop industrial… we might have a chance for some people to start over and make a world for later generations, not based on industrialization. However, the fact that we have 444 nuclear power plants around the world now… kind of puts a damper on that… and oh, industrial civilization will end… eventually and then, those nuclear plants will take away our “chance” anyway.


Permaculture can grow more food with less water.

The problem is that each plot needs personal attention, so that it is not compatible with agribusiness. Large organizations, therefore, won’t teach it. It should be part of any genuine people’s movement. It’s up to us, sisters and brothers.


You are making a comparative judgement (which is pretty understandable after my innappropriate use of the word ‘hell’) and overlooking the ills that can be seen in modern civilisation across the globe - Nordic countries being no exception in terms of the runaway consumption typical of affluent nations.
More importantly, my point is a philosophical one about how one understands the world. The human mind likes easy explanations and so names one nation as communist, another as capitalist, another as socialist and so forth. This is lazy thinking however popular it is. There are no regimes that conform to any of these formulas. Reality is simply far far far too complex. But that point should not be left as just some philosophical or academic piece of intellectual hair-splitting: the ramifications of trying to use the formula of communism in the USSR and in China were very real and far from amusing. Failure to accept that the complexity of reality is and will always be beyond the mind - especially the analytical or reductionist mind - accounts for ALL the political conflict in today’s world, not to mention the resultant warfare. Once this is understood, politics loses its veneer of credibility.

All of them.

Not at all. Obviously anyone can discuss whatever they think is a good idea and it is for others to judge as they see fit. The issue is that the situation is always dynamic. Wearing waterproof clothing makes sense in the rain but not in blazing sunshine. So if that dynamism applies on such a parochial scale why do we look for set formulas on the much grander scale? The set formula is instrumental in CREATING conflict as it represents intransigence and an unwillingness to adapt in terms of how and why others have different ideas.

The most worn out and yet still-popular oxymoron there is. Obama and countless others of his kind use it.
Anyway, you’re putting up a straw man argument. Who said anything about any self help book?
Just because one has not joined a gang does not mean one has no power and one is doing nothing. That mentality is another artefact of political coercion. Be with us or be a loser. But sides are the stuff of wars as history demonstrates tragically well.


Not really replying, just can’t seem to find where to post a comment. Read the whole article, laughed my head off for a while, then re-read the article. Who or what is Oxfam? I have never heard of this person or association, or whatever it is. But… I’m doing my part by not eating breakfast so that food can be sent to the poor starving masses that are affected by this totally natural occurrence.


…are you taking your med.‘s as prescribed? maybe an adjustment to the dose should be made…just sayin’…