> Wtf happened with the chemical industry in general?
Don't look now, but the same thing that happened to quite literally every single important industry critical to human survival. It's all incredibly centralized and fragile, to a degree I don't think many even begin to realize.
> Why don't we have more, spread around the world, and capable of slight over-production just in case?
Money.
> or we're all just "green" and "bio" and stuff now, willing to let poorer people just suffer hunger?
Nope, just money. Would have been far "greener" and "bio" and stuff if we had actually invested in such infrastructure, even if more expensive.
This ironically enables the current historically cheap food situation we're currently in. In no time in human history has less labor or wealth per capita been put into food production.
> While we're it, I still can't wrap my head of the stupidity of all those charities that work to "solve hunger" in Africa and places but can't ever bother to help them pool investment
This is definitely one of my pet peeve rants as well. I've always said these organizations are likely to cause more death and human suffering than anything that has come before it. As soon as the ships of grain stop sailing whenever a moderate disruption finally happens (60-70 years of peace is really just a minor blip on the radar), people very rapidly will starve with little local recourse or knowledge to fall back on.
Teach a man to fish and all that.