Brazil develops tropical wheat and predicts self-sufficiency in 5 years

Post by vkou » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 7:58 AM UTC

wolverine876 wrote: post #81

tirrellp wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because 'Geopolitical Risk' is a thing. Its nice when you can buy $60/bushel wheat. Its not so nice when your dealer cuts you off. The extra $40/bushel you pay to produce in-house, thats your insurance policy against having your supplies cut off. In a world where geopolitical lines are shifting, it's a matter of national security and optionality to have your own food production capacity. Risk management.

That's not risk management, that's a panicked reaction. Risk management accepts risk, takes into account likelihood and cost, and finds the most economical outcome. Nationalism makes you poor.

Post by anthk » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 8:02 AM UTC

School-Cotton wrote: post #73

foobarian wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't the states there organize into a southern United States? It feels silly to talk about self-sufficiency and all when the analog at country level is the USA states. Nobody would expect e.g. Rhode Island to feed itself, but thankfully there is the Midwest. Maybe Bolivar's dream could come true one day.

The Latin American countries are probably too different to unify. Some are led by right-wing populists (El Salvador) and some by left-wing ones (Colombia, Brazil). Some are rich (Uruguay) and some are very poor (Nicaragua, Venezuela). Some are huge and powerful (Brazil and Mexico) and would be able to completely dominate the rest. Some are liberal democracies and some are one-party states. On the cultural level, they…

Post by was_a_dev » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 8:08 AM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #125

was_a_dev wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are renewables economically viable? I don't expect any nation that isn't "rich enough" to go green, but the trends of it becoming cheaper means it will become the cheapest means. Are we there yet? My assumption was the political climate of Brazil was primarily pushing oil dependence

Current political climate seems to favor making gasoline cheaper for the poorest brazilian consumers at pretty much any cost. I've read that they want to uncouple local fuel prices from world wide market prices. They really want to wash off the bitter taste left by the utterly insane prices during the pandemic. Thus their move will likely be to somehow dictate prices to Petrobras, profitability be damned. Petrobras s…

Post by hulitu » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 8:15 AM UTC

lostlogin wrote: post #31

marcodiego wrote: post #26

There are a few things that would make Brazil a lot more stable economically (and even socially and politically) if we achieved self-sufficiency: Fossil fuels: Currently, Brazil is self-sufficient in oil, but we export petrol to buy back refined fuels (gasoline and diesel). If we were self-sufficient in fossil fuels we would be much more immune to inflation every time OPEC decides to reduce oil output. Wheat: We are…

> Fertilizers: The largest world food producer needs imported fertilizers. The irony: our main supplier is Russia. This basically prevents Brazil taking any side in the conflict and affects our (and our buyers) food prices as much as wheat. No, it means you can’t take a position without paying a cost. A lot of countries used to depend on Russia for various things, and they have paid a price to change this.

Post by piva00 » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 8:18 AM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #106

nemonemo wrote: post #12

This sounds amazing, but at the same time, I am concerned about the rain forest. Obviously more economically useful crops would accelerate repurposing the rain forest. Maybe the world would need to subsidize Brazil more to keep the rain forest? And could Brazil be expecting more subsidy with this development?

I'd burn that entire jungle down if it brought us industry, development and prosperity in exchange. Why is it that only developed countries got to exploit their natural resources?