Viability of countries being self-sufficient on food and fuel

Chew Toy McCoy

Chew Toy McCoy

Pleb
Site Donor
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Posts
8,670
Titled so that the conversation isn’t completely US-centric, but having said that, for the US could they retool things so that we are completely self-sufficient on food and fuel? Would that just mean the involved industries aren’t as profitable compared to being global or is it just not possible?

As an example, the whole wheat thing with Russia and Ukraine. Couldn’t we just grow our own wheat to cover our own needs (maybe we already do?). Excuse my ignorance, but it seems like it was decided that different countries are going to focus on a specific crop or two for global access and trade instead of diversifying for their own needs. That would probably make sense if the world was a peaceful place, but it’s not.

And like the title suggests, weigh in on if your country could pull this off if you don't live in the US.
 
A quick search says that the US is a net exporter of food as of 2019. But that doesn’t mean we currently produce everything we need locally, just that the US makes money selling food. That said, there’s a couple things to consider going forward:

1. We’d probably benefit even more if we didn’t demand a good chunk of corn being produced strictly for fuel.
2. Changing climate can affect our ability to feed ourselves as ideal growing areas get shifted north into less fertile soils.

As for fuel, we did import about 1/5th of our petroleum in 2017. But on that front, I think we’re better off looking at approaches on reducing consumption. Designing our cities for people, rather than cars. Bolstering public transport and investing in EVs. Investing in rail freight. Bringing more renewables into our power mix, and even investing in modern nuclear power. Don’t need to import what you don’t use.

The irony is that our car centric city design of the late 20th century has a lot of problems with it. Land use rules creating car dependence means that demand for petroleum is inelastic. Facing climate change and wanting energy independence, this is not the situation we want to be in. But it’s not just energy independence and climate change that can benefit from rethinking our approach to cities and suburbs. Housing costs, utility costs, and city budgets all improve when you aren’t devoting so much space for cars (i.e. parking lots) and single-use zoning. Heck, I’m confident that car dependence is one factor in the obesity epidemic.
 
Per the wheat comment - we don't actually need grains (and gluten is inflammatory) (yes, I'm a keto proponent) :D
Me, I'm hoping that eventually we'll see that we can keep rice - but corn and wheat are just bad for us.
And grass-fed cows, pigs and chickens produce healthier proteins. /end nutritional rant :D

From the power standpoint - it all goes to $ - if everyone around the world could afford solar and wind (and have the conditions to support them), then yes.
Heating/cooling could be geothermal. Pays for itself, but the upfront costs are prohibitive for the average person.

It also goes to portions. No one actually needs a 16 ounce steak. 5 ounces. Look to Asia where a couple of chicken breasts in a stir fry would feel a family of 5 or 6. People don't actually need so much protein.

How much land in the US is wasted on corn production? (and it's incredibly hard on the soil).
 
Chew Toy McCoy said:
And like the title suggests, weigh in on if your country could pull this off if you don't live in the US.
Click to expand...
To answer the original question, the EU is working towards being self sufficient food wise. (I guess should Ukraine join it'd be easily achievable.)

France is 111% self sufficient, while Germany is 83% and Italy 63%.

Problem is you need space. One thing most European countries has very little of.

The UK I was surprised to see can provide 60%-64% of its internal food needs. (This compares to 78% in 1984!) But going beyond that is difficult as there is just not a lot of land available. Also the climate is tricky.
Link


fischersd said:
Per the wheat comment - we don't actually need grains (and gluten is inflammatory) (yes, I'm a keto proponent) :D
Me, I'm hoping that eventually we'll see that we can keep rice - but corn and wheat are just bad for us.
And grass-fed cows, pigs and chickens produce healthier proteins. /end nutritional rant :D
Click to expand...
👍👍👍
Same here… 11 years and going strong.
 
Last edited:
I think the biggest issue America faces, not sure but other countries probably have this issue too. Family run farms are near extinct, and corporations have replace them.
 
Arkitect said:
The UK I was surprised to see can provide 60%-64% of its internal food needs. (This compares to 78% in 1984!) But going beyond that is difficult as there is just not a lot of land available. Also the climate is tricky.
Click to expand...

The solution to that is hydroponic vertical farms. Needs a lot less land and water and can be indoors and climate controlled.
 
The US could be self-sufficient for food, but would you be willing to pay more for your food?

Fuel is more of a challenge, but the US both imports and exports huge amounts of oil and related products. Exporting less could mean importing less, but that would likely increase the cost of fuel to the consumer......so are people willing to pay more to get fuel independence?
 
In terms of America, I’d imagine we could be self sufficient but there would presumably be some significant sacrifices. But even if we were forced to voluntarily decided to be self sufficient tomorrow, I don’t think it would be possible. There would have to be significant changes that would have to happen.

For example, it takes time and a lot of money to open new oil drilling and refining sites. You can’t magically decide to switch your crops to wheat and have a harvest. The US has rare mineral resources, but we have very little mining and refining of them happening because it’s a very environmentally dirty industry and it’s cheaper for it to happen in developing nations- so laws would have to change, mines would have to be built, refining centers built, etc.

I would imagine it would take a lot of time and money to transition and in the end lots of things would end up being far more expensive.

For a lot of other countries, I don’t think this is remotely possible. They don’t have the climate, the money, natural resources, Human Resources, physical space, etc to make it happen.

The world is a much better place when there is peace and harmony and people can trade freely.
 
AG_PhamD said:
The world is a much better place when there is peace and harmony and people can trade freely.
Click to expand...

Even that simple statement is subject to debate/qualification. Peaceful free trade is resulting in entire tropical ecosystems being trashed for oil palm plantations. "Free trade" is clearly very unbalanced and is not making the world a much better place – may be making it much worse.
 
Last edited:
AG_PhamD said:
In terms of America, I’d imagine we could be self sufficient but there would presumably be some significant sacrifices. But even if we were forced to voluntarily decided to be self sufficient tomorrow, I don’t think it would be possible....
Click to expand...

For food, I suspect the US could become self sufficient quite quickly if circumstances required it. As Yoused pointed out, there's a significant amount of food that currently goes to waste. In addition, the US is a major food exporter, so immediately reducing exports would also help make up for reduced imports...that would of course create problems for those countries importing food from the US.
 
Yoused said:
Even that simple statement is subject to debate/qualification. Peaceful free trade is resulting in entire tropical ecosystems being trashed for oil palm plantations. "Free trade" is clearly very unbalanced and is not making the world a much better place – may be making it much worse.
Click to expand...
Most people think of "free trade" as commerce where the governmental subsidies and border tariffs have been removed. I really doubt that's had any bearing. Mankind has been sacrificing the environment to pursue monetary gain ever since we started farming.

We had forests and jungles cleared for farmland long before the pursuit of trade without government protections.

Now, if you want to say all of this commercialism and excess is destroying the environment... :)

Also wanted to comment on the fuel topic...people need to stop thinking of oil as fuel. Think of it as poison...we need to get off of it - completely!
 
Back
Top