I'd like to also bring attention to the following quote: Would the situation be as bad if land was redistributed? What is this land currently used for?
I'd like to also bring attention to the following quote:
Local political factors are also important. Water shortages and poverty are causally linked to the country’s skewed land distribution: roughly 2% of the population control 70% of all productive farmland. In Chiquimula, 71% of people live in poverty, and 40% in extreme poverty.
Would the situation be as bad if land was redistributed? What is this land currently used for?
Like where? In the US, 22.4 percent of the population of 327 million is under 18, which would mean that (100-22.4) = 77.6% of the population of 327 million, or (0.776*327) = 253 million people,...
Would the situation be as bad if land was redistributed?
Consider then that there are "almost 3 million people" in the US that own farmland, so if we round that up to 3 million, then (3/253) = 1.2% of the adult US population owns all the farmland in the US.
Where is the food that's being grown and who's profiting from the sale? Those are probably the more important questions than should the land be redistributed.
Thanks for doing the research on that one, although my question still stands. I was considering the possibility that the majority of the landowners are growing cash crops instead of food for the...
Thanks for doing the research on that one, although my question still stands. I was considering the possibility that the majority of the landowners are growing cash crops instead of food for the locals. Maybe if the land was redistributed among subsistence farmers they would able to grow what they need.
Right, that's basically what I'm getting at, too. If the people that are farming the land are, say, diverting water from streams that would otherwise replenish reservoirs to grow something like...
Right, that's basically what I'm getting at, too. If the people that are farming the land are, say, diverting water from streams that would otherwise replenish reservoirs to grow something like avocados or bananas for export, then probably that's contributing to the humanitarian crisis.
On the other hand, in reading the article, it seems like food is also particularly scarce, even though it wasn't mentioned in that quote, and there exists the possibility that crops that grow well in Guatemala but not in other countries (chocolate, coffee, etc.) might be more valuable to farm than foods like corn. That is, it could be possible that farming a particular acreage of land for coffee could result in sales that would purchase more corn than could be produced on the same acreage.
The article does mention coffee specifically. It sounds like both food crops and cash crops are failing simultaneously.
The article does mention coffee specifically. It sounds like both food crops and cash crops are failing simultaneously.
The region’s main cash crop is coffee, and for decades, many campesinos relied on seasonal work at commercial plantations to supplement their subsistence lifestyle.
But a global price crash and the deadly rust fungus known locally as la rolla – which thrives in hot and humid conditions exacerbated by the climate crisis – have wiped out about 80% of the region’s coffee in the past five years.
I'd like to also bring attention to the following quote:
Would the situation be as bad if land was redistributed? What is this land currently used for?
Like where? In the US, 22.4 percent of the population of 327 million is under 18, which would mean that (100-22.4) = 77.6% of the population of 327 million, or (0.776*327) = 253 million people, are over 18.
Consider then that there are "almost 3 million people" in the US that own farmland, so if we round that up to 3 million, then (3/253) = 1.2% of the adult US population owns all the farmland in the US.
Where is the food that's being grown and who's profiting from the sale? Those are probably the more important questions than should the land be redistributed.
Thanks for doing the research on that one, although my question still stands. I was considering the possibility that the majority of the landowners are growing cash crops instead of food for the locals. Maybe if the land was redistributed among subsistence farmers they would able to grow what they need.
Right, that's basically what I'm getting at, too. If the people that are farming the land are, say, diverting water from streams that would otherwise replenish reservoirs to grow something like avocados or bananas for export, then probably that's contributing to the humanitarian crisis.
On the other hand, in reading the article, it seems like food is also particularly scarce, even though it wasn't mentioned in that quote, and there exists the possibility that crops that grow well in Guatemala but not in other countries (chocolate, coffee, etc.) might be more valuable to farm than foods like corn. That is, it could be possible that farming a particular acreage of land for coffee could result in sales that would purchase more corn than could be produced on the same acreage.
Whatever the case, it's tragic.
The article does mention coffee specifically. It sounds like both food crops and cash crops are failing simultaneously.
I bet you're right.