Star report gave him a scare and much-needed push
May 27, 2008 04:30 AM
Donovan Vincent
City Hall Bureau
A mother's public plea that her son – a homeless panhandler in Toronto – seek help, has inspired the young man to put renewed energy into kicking his drug habit
In a story last week the Star reported that Kathy Rasmussens of Collingwood has tried desperately to get her 24-year-old son Patrick O'Hara off crack, and off the streets where he panhandles for drug money.
He's been away from home for four years, and has panhandled at Queen St. and Spadina Ave. His mother has made repeated attempts to get him help.
Rasmussens said staff at her son's methadone clinic told her last winter that O'Hara has to want to help himself first.
In an interview yesterday O'Hara said his mother's plea, and seeing his story laid out in black and white, jolted him into action.
He was shown the story by staff at a youth shelter he's staying in.
"Basically that article scared the sh-- out of me. I've been clean 10 days now," he said.
"It definitely gave me a push. I was a couple days sober before the story, but I've maintained (sobriety) since the article, so it did give me a scare and a push."
Aside from daily methadone doses at the Satellite Breakaway Clinic downtown for his addiction to the painkiller OxyContin, O'Hara must also undergo weekly drug screening there.
Staff there confirmed he remains clean of all drugs.
O'Hara praised the clinic, which offers a wide variety of supports, including counselling, help getting housing and food, and access to computers.
And though he says he was shocked and a bit angry that his hardships and struggles with drugs were published for all to see, he's grateful to his mother.
"I love my mom, like any son would. Of course I do. I love what she's doing. She meant it for the best," he said.
But the two haven't spoken since January. O'Hara said he plans to keep it that way for now.
"I don't want to talk to my mother until I have myself together," he said.
His mother wrote a letter to the Star a few weeks ago after seeing O'Hara on the street in a television news report. The story was about the city's plan to spend $5 million to curb panhandling by finding housing for panhandlers.
His mother has voiced skepticism about the city's "housing first'' approach, saying O'Hara needs to kick his drug habit first.
O'Hara said he was 16 when he first tried crack as a youngster growing up in Thornhill.
"Many of the my friends I grew up with, we all tried it. I found myself using it alone, and that's when I realized I had a problem," he said.
"I used to always come to Toronto and say, I'll never be downtown doing crack, living on the street. That scared the hell out of me. Two years later that's what I was doing."
O'Hara said when he panhandles he does so for about four to five hours and makes about $200.
His mother said he stole from her when he was living at home to support his habit, but O'Hara denied the claims.
Source
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Inequality rots social foundations
May 07, 2008 04:30 AM
Carol Goar
Inequality corrodes a society quietly.
A decade ago, Mel Lastman was astonished to discover that there were homeless people in Toronto. Today we're inured to the sight of sleeping bags on the sidewalk and panhandlers outside stores, restaurants and subway stations.
Twenty-five years ago, community workers set up food banks as an emergency response to a brief recession. Today, despite one of the longest expansions in Canadian history, they're permanent fixtures in almost every municipality.
A generation ago, corporate executives earned 40 times as much as their employees. Workers grumbled, but negotiated decent contracts. Today, the country's top 100 chief executive officers earn 248 times the average wage. Most workers have no job security, few benefits and no union to protect them.
The 2006 census, released last week, confirmed that Canada is turning into a nation of "haves" and "have-nots." Those in the middle are treading water arduously. Their children's living standard is likely to be lower than theirs.
No one was particularly shocked. The numbers weren't new. The gap between rich and poor wasn't a surprise. After a day or two of hand-wringing, most commentators moved on to other issues.
This lack of debate – in the legislatures, the business world, the lecture halls and regrettably the media – is as worrisome as the statistics. It leads Canadians to believe inequality doesn't matter.
A team of researchers at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternative has spent the past 18 months trying to break through this complacency and explain why the polarization of wealth is too important to ignore.
The release of last week's census data prompted Trish Hennessy, the director of the Inequality Project, to approach seven top academics – four economists, a political scientist, a sociologist and a philosopher – with a simple request. Tell Canadians why inequality matters in 1,000 words or less.
It would be impossible to do justice to their answers (which can be found at www.policyalternatives.ca) in a newspaper column. But here are a few snippets:
Frank Cunningham, professor of philosophy and political science at the University of Toronto and former principal of Innis College: "When a democratic society contains significant inequalities, it begins to resemble an autocracy. People understand themselves to be politically impotent."
Jon Kesselman, economics professor at Simon Fraser University, research fellow of the C.D. Howe Institute and Canada Research Chair on Public Finance: "The further the incomes of top earners diverge from the average, the more divorced they become from the needs of the average citizen. For example, the push for privatization of health care is driven in part by a minority who can easily afford to pay for their own needs directly."
Charles Beach, director of the John Deutsch Institute at Queen's University: "When the poor do not have the opportunity to reach the full potential of their talents, economic growth suffers. Increased resentment, disaffection, social conflict and crime potentially associated with substantially widened inequality could also reduce the security of property rights."
Lars Osberg, chair of the department of economics at Dalhousie University: "When it can be plainly seen that Canadian society does not much care about the rights of its least fortunate, the question may well occur to others: Why should anybody care very much about the rights of other citizens?"
Welcome as these contributions are, more voices are needed, speaking in the language of the streets, the office, the theatre and the schoolyard. More passion is needed from parents who want to raise their children in a country with a healthy middle class and a shared set of values. More leadership is needed from public figures who stand for a Canada of fairness and opportunity.
Our parents and grandparents worked hard to build a society in which no one would have to line up at a soup kitchen or beg for spare change. We're letting it slip away.
Next: What can be done?
Source
Carol Goar
Inequality corrodes a society quietly.
A decade ago, Mel Lastman was astonished to discover that there were homeless people in Toronto. Today we're inured to the sight of sleeping bags on the sidewalk and panhandlers outside stores, restaurants and subway stations.
Twenty-five years ago, community workers set up food banks as an emergency response to a brief recession. Today, despite one of the longest expansions in Canadian history, they're permanent fixtures in almost every municipality.
A generation ago, corporate executives earned 40 times as much as their employees. Workers grumbled, but negotiated decent contracts. Today, the country's top 100 chief executive officers earn 248 times the average wage. Most workers have no job security, few benefits and no union to protect them.
The 2006 census, released last week, confirmed that Canada is turning into a nation of "haves" and "have-nots." Those in the middle are treading water arduously. Their children's living standard is likely to be lower than theirs.
No one was particularly shocked. The numbers weren't new. The gap between rich and poor wasn't a surprise. After a day or two of hand-wringing, most commentators moved on to other issues.
This lack of debate – in the legislatures, the business world, the lecture halls and regrettably the media – is as worrisome as the statistics. It leads Canadians to believe inequality doesn't matter.
A team of researchers at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternative has spent the past 18 months trying to break through this complacency and explain why the polarization of wealth is too important to ignore.
The release of last week's census data prompted Trish Hennessy, the director of the Inequality Project, to approach seven top academics – four economists, a political scientist, a sociologist and a philosopher – with a simple request. Tell Canadians why inequality matters in 1,000 words or less.
It would be impossible to do justice to their answers (which can be found at www.policyalternatives.ca) in a newspaper column. But here are a few snippets:
Frank Cunningham, professor of philosophy and political science at the University of Toronto and former principal of Innis College: "When a democratic society contains significant inequalities, it begins to resemble an autocracy. People understand themselves to be politically impotent."
Jon Kesselman, economics professor at Simon Fraser University, research fellow of the C.D. Howe Institute and Canada Research Chair on Public Finance: "The further the incomes of top earners diverge from the average, the more divorced they become from the needs of the average citizen. For example, the push for privatization of health care is driven in part by a minority who can easily afford to pay for their own needs directly."
Charles Beach, director of the John Deutsch Institute at Queen's University: "When the poor do not have the opportunity to reach the full potential of their talents, economic growth suffers. Increased resentment, disaffection, social conflict and crime potentially associated with substantially widened inequality could also reduce the security of property rights."
Lars Osberg, chair of the department of economics at Dalhousie University: "When it can be plainly seen that Canadian society does not much care about the rights of its least fortunate, the question may well occur to others: Why should anybody care very much about the rights of other citizens?"
Welcome as these contributions are, more voices are needed, speaking in the language of the streets, the office, the theatre and the schoolyard. More passion is needed from parents who want to raise their children in a country with a healthy middle class and a shared set of values. More leadership is needed from public figures who stand for a Canada of fairness and opportunity.
Our parents and grandparents worked hard to build a society in which no one would have to line up at a soup kitchen or beg for spare change. We're letting it slip away.
Next: What can be done?
Source
Friday, May 23, 2008
How will home help her son?
The City of Toronto is on the verge of approving a $5M plan to get panhandlers off the streets and into stable housing, but one mother of a panhandling drug addict is skeptical
May 19, 2008 04:30 AM
Donovan Vincent
City Hall Bureau
Kathy Rasmussens is a desperate mother. Her 24-year-old son, Patrick O'Hara, is a drug addict who panhandles downtown, typically at Queen St. and Spadina Ave.
She has tried, desperately, to get him help to kick the gnawing cravings he has for crack cocaine and other drugs. To no avail.
"It's awful to say, but I pray for him to just get thrown in jail long enough that he can get off the drugs,'' she said.
This past winter, a physician at Patrick's methadone clinic laid out the stark truth: "It was basically no use trying to get help for Patrick. He said Patrick has to be ready to get help, but right now the drugs have a hold on him and he has no control," Rasmussens said.
Panhandling has been a sore point for businesspeople, politicians and many residents for years. The emphasis most recently has been on using the heavy arm of the law to try to curb it. But now, city council is on the verge of voting for an alternative plan many hope will be more successful: spending an extra $5 million a year to hire more social workers who would help get panhandlers, the majority of them homeless, into housing.
This "housing first" strategy holds that barriers such as addictions or mental health problems are best addressed once a person has stable housing.
"From that base they can work on issues causing them challenges in life," said Katherine Chislett, director of Toronto's Housing and Homelessness Supports and Initiatives, adding the method has been used successfully in other places.
Though it's a well-intentioned approach, Rasmussens is skeptical it will work for her son. A home is important, but she prays for the day he gets long-term treatment.
Rasmussens, a realtor who moved from Thornhill to Collingwood where she lives with her husband and two young children, believes Patrick's problems started at age 10, when he was diagnosed with attention deficit disorder. Older brother Michael had no such issues.
A doctor's warnings that Patrick's disability might bring him into trouble with the law proved true. He was only 16 when he first saw the inside of a jail cell – after he and some friends broke into and damaged a portable classroom.
By the time he was 19, Patrick's penchant for hellraising had escalated. By this time his father had died and his mother had remarried.
He was heavily into drugs and stealing to support his habit. Patrick even stole and pawned tools and other items belonging to his mother and stepfather and intercepted a $2,000 money transfer meant for his brother.
Convicted of theft, he was jailed for a few months but later made his way to Toronto and fell back into his old ways.
Months later, there was a glimmer of hope: "Patrick called and said he was ready and wanted to get help. I dropped everything and drove straight there. I brought him back to Collingwood. I called the detox in Owen Sound and they had a bed. I took him straight there."
He spent four days there before calling his mom.
"He begged me to come get him from detox. ... He kept phoning and phoning. Finally, I said, `You can stay here (in Collingwood) until you get into a long-term residential treatment centre.'''
Patrick, then 20, agreed to that and other conditions, including that he stay in the house and have no visitors. But the plan soon failed.
"I brought him home. I left the room to make a phone call, and when I got back he had vanished and stole my $1,500 Tag watch," Rasmussens said.
She drove around Collingwood looking for him, but he'd vanished. He hasn't been back since.
For a while, it sounded as though Patrick was doing okay in Toronto. At 22, he was hanging out at Queen and Spadina with other panhandlers, but he told his mom he had an apartment and was picking up the odd short-term job here and there. When he got in trouble money-wise, there were shelters where he could get a meal and a bed.
But he never kicked the drugs. And panhandling was always a backup, his mother said. Sometimes months would pass when she had no clue where he was. But then she'd go to his favourite corner and find him, and they'd catch up.
This past Christmas, the whole family went searching for Patrick again after not seeing him for a year.
She was shocked at how badly he had deteriorated.
"His face was drawn in. He was in the middle of the intersection leaning backwards and yelling at cars.
"He was so high he was ... scary. He looked like a 50-year-old man. He was so skinny and his eyes were sunken. We were horrified.
"Michael was crying because he didn't know what to do," Rasmussens said. The two took Patrick for a coffee and a chat.
She and Michael returned in January, determined to get help for Patrick. She talked to youth shelters and armed herself with information about available services.
They found him, brought him to a hotel, convinced him to try detox. Patrick was insistent he'd check himself in. He did, but didn't stay.
Rasmussen drove back to Toronto again to look for him. That's when she went to the methadone clinic and got the blunt assessment.
She hadn't heard from Patrick since January, and then earlier this month she saw a television news report about Toronto's plan to spend the $5 million to curb panhandling.
There was Patrick on TV, walking between cars, begging.
"I could go back down to Toronto to get him, but it's like beating my head against a wall,'' Rasmussens said. "I can't take him to a treatment centre and make him stay."
May 19, 2008 04:30 AM
Donovan Vincent
City Hall Bureau
Kathy Rasmussens is a desperate mother. Her 24-year-old son, Patrick O'Hara, is a drug addict who panhandles downtown, typically at Queen St. and Spadina Ave.
She has tried, desperately, to get him help to kick the gnawing cravings he has for crack cocaine and other drugs. To no avail.
"It's awful to say, but I pray for him to just get thrown in jail long enough that he can get off the drugs,'' she said.
This past winter, a physician at Patrick's methadone clinic laid out the stark truth: "It was basically no use trying to get help for Patrick. He said Patrick has to be ready to get help, but right now the drugs have a hold on him and he has no control," Rasmussens said.
Panhandling has been a sore point for businesspeople, politicians and many residents for years. The emphasis most recently has been on using the heavy arm of the law to try to curb it. But now, city council is on the verge of voting for an alternative plan many hope will be more successful: spending an extra $5 million a year to hire more social workers who would help get panhandlers, the majority of them homeless, into housing.
This "housing first" strategy holds that barriers such as addictions or mental health problems are best addressed once a person has stable housing.
"From that base they can work on issues causing them challenges in life," said Katherine Chislett, director of Toronto's Housing and Homelessness Supports and Initiatives, adding the method has been used successfully in other places.
Though it's a well-intentioned approach, Rasmussens is skeptical it will work for her son. A home is important, but she prays for the day he gets long-term treatment.
Rasmussens, a realtor who moved from Thornhill to Collingwood where she lives with her husband and two young children, believes Patrick's problems started at age 10, when he was diagnosed with attention deficit disorder. Older brother Michael had no such issues.
A doctor's warnings that Patrick's disability might bring him into trouble with the law proved true. He was only 16 when he first saw the inside of a jail cell – after he and some friends broke into and damaged a portable classroom.
By the time he was 19, Patrick's penchant for hellraising had escalated. By this time his father had died and his mother had remarried.
He was heavily into drugs and stealing to support his habit. Patrick even stole and pawned tools and other items belonging to his mother and stepfather and intercepted a $2,000 money transfer meant for his brother.
Convicted of theft, he was jailed for a few months but later made his way to Toronto and fell back into his old ways.
Months later, there was a glimmer of hope: "Patrick called and said he was ready and wanted to get help. I dropped everything and drove straight there. I brought him back to Collingwood. I called the detox in Owen Sound and they had a bed. I took him straight there."
He spent four days there before calling his mom.
"He begged me to come get him from detox. ... He kept phoning and phoning. Finally, I said, `You can stay here (in Collingwood) until you get into a long-term residential treatment centre.'''
Patrick, then 20, agreed to that and other conditions, including that he stay in the house and have no visitors. But the plan soon failed.
"I brought him home. I left the room to make a phone call, and when I got back he had vanished and stole my $1,500 Tag watch," Rasmussens said.
She drove around Collingwood looking for him, but he'd vanished. He hasn't been back since.
For a while, it sounded as though Patrick was doing okay in Toronto. At 22, he was hanging out at Queen and Spadina with other panhandlers, but he told his mom he had an apartment and was picking up the odd short-term job here and there. When he got in trouble money-wise, there were shelters where he could get a meal and a bed.
But he never kicked the drugs. And panhandling was always a backup, his mother said. Sometimes months would pass when she had no clue where he was. But then she'd go to his favourite corner and find him, and they'd catch up.
This past Christmas, the whole family went searching for Patrick again after not seeing him for a year.
She was shocked at how badly he had deteriorated.
"His face was drawn in. He was in the middle of the intersection leaning backwards and yelling at cars.
"He was so high he was ... scary. He looked like a 50-year-old man. He was so skinny and his eyes were sunken. We were horrified.
"Michael was crying because he didn't know what to do," Rasmussens said. The two took Patrick for a coffee and a chat.
She and Michael returned in January, determined to get help for Patrick. She talked to youth shelters and armed herself with information about available services.
They found him, brought him to a hotel, convinced him to try detox. Patrick was insistent he'd check himself in. He did, but didn't stay.
Rasmussen drove back to Toronto again to look for him. That's when she went to the methadone clinic and got the blunt assessment.
She hadn't heard from Patrick since January, and then earlier this month she saw a television news report about Toronto's plan to spend the $5 million to curb panhandling.
There was Patrick on TV, walking between cars, begging.
"I could go back down to Toronto to get him, but it's like beating my head against a wall,'' Rasmussens said. "I can't take him to a treatment centre and make him stay."
http://www.thestar.com/article/427311
Sunday, May 4, 2008
US eats 5 times more than India per capita
US eats 5 times more than India per capita
The Times of India
4 May 2008
Even as the world spins into a global food crisis, a popular theory — voiced by the likes of US President George W Bush and secretary of state Condoleezza Rice — is that the Chinese and Indians are responsible. The 'logic': due to zooming incomes, they are eating more, causing worldwide shortages. But is that true?
Due to their huge populations, countries like India and China may appear to consume gigantic amounts of food. But the real elephant in the room that nobody is willing to talk about is how much each person gets to eat. And the answer will shock many.
Total foodgrain consumption — wheat, rice, and all coarse grains like rye, barley etc — by each person in the US is over five times that of an Indian, according to figures released by the US Department of Agriculture for 2007.
Each Indian gets to eat about 178 kg of grain in a year, while a US citizen consumes 1,046 kg.
In per capita terms, US grain consumption is twice that of the European Union and thrice that of China. Grain consumption includes flour and by conversion to alcohol.
In fact, per capita grain consumption has increased in the US — so actually the Americans are eating more. In 2003, US per capita grain consumption was 946 kg per year which increased to 1046 kg last year.
By way of comparison, India’s per capita grain consumption has remained static over the same period. It’s not just grains. Milk consumption, in fluid form, is 78 kg per year for each person in the US, compared to 36 kg in India and 11 kg in China.
Vegetable oils consumption per person is 41 kg per year in US, while Indians are making do with just 11 kg per year. These are figures for liquid milk, not for cheese, butter, yogurt and milk powders which are consumed in huge proportion in the more advanced countries.
A significant proportion of India’s population is vegetarian, and so, this is all the food that they get, apart from vegetables and pulses. But the source of carbohydrates and fats is mainly derived from food grains and oils.
As far as meat consumption is concerned, the US leads the world in per capita consumption by a wide margin. Beef consumption, for example, is 42.6 kg per person per year, compared to a mere 1.6 kg in India and 5.9 kg in China. In case you are thinking that perhaps Indians might be going in for chicken, think again. In the US, 45.4 kg poultry meat is consumed every year by each person, compared to just 1.9 kg in India.
Pork consumption is negligible in India, while it is a major item elsewhere. In the European Union, 42.6 kg pork is consumed per person every year, while in the US, 29.7 kgs are consumed. Pork is a staple for Chinese, and so over 35 kg are consumed per person per year. And, we are not talking about various other types of meat, like turkey.
All these comparisons are for powerful economies, whether of the west or the east.
But the story would not be complete without mentioning the plight of Africa, where foodgrain consumption in 2007 was a mere 162 kg per year for each person, or about 445 grams per day. Don’t forget they are not getting any meat or milk products out there.
Perhaps, it is time to include the lifestyle choices of the West in the whole feverish debate on how to tackle the global food crisis.
These figures are collated by the US Department of Agriculture. US per capita grain consumption rose from 946 kg in 2003 to 1046 kg last year. India’s per capita consumption remained static in this period.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/US_eats_5_times_more_than_India_per_capita/rssarticleshow/3008449.cms
The Times of India
4 May 2008
Even as the world spins into a global food crisis, a popular theory — voiced by the likes of US President George W Bush and secretary of state Condoleezza Rice — is that the Chinese and Indians are responsible. The 'logic': due to zooming incomes, they are eating more, causing worldwide shortages. But is that true?
Due to their huge populations, countries like India and China may appear to consume gigantic amounts of food. But the real elephant in the room that nobody is willing to talk about is how much each person gets to eat. And the answer will shock many.
Total foodgrain consumption — wheat, rice, and all coarse grains like rye, barley etc — by each person in the US is over five times that of an Indian, according to figures released by the US Department of Agriculture for 2007.
Each Indian gets to eat about 178 kg of grain in a year, while a US citizen consumes 1,046 kg.
In per capita terms, US grain consumption is twice that of the European Union and thrice that of China. Grain consumption includes flour and by conversion to alcohol.
In fact, per capita grain consumption has increased in the US — so actually the Americans are eating more. In 2003, US per capita grain consumption was 946 kg per year which increased to 1046 kg last year.
By way of comparison, India’s per capita grain consumption has remained static over the same period. It’s not just grains. Milk consumption, in fluid form, is 78 kg per year for each person in the US, compared to 36 kg in India and 11 kg in China.
Vegetable oils consumption per person is 41 kg per year in US, while Indians are making do with just 11 kg per year. These are figures for liquid milk, not for cheese, butter, yogurt and milk powders which are consumed in huge proportion in the more advanced countries.
A significant proportion of India’s population is vegetarian, and so, this is all the food that they get, apart from vegetables and pulses. But the source of carbohydrates and fats is mainly derived from food grains and oils.
As far as meat consumption is concerned, the US leads the world in per capita consumption by a wide margin. Beef consumption, for example, is 42.6 kg per person per year, compared to a mere 1.6 kg in India and 5.9 kg in China. In case you are thinking that perhaps Indians might be going in for chicken, think again. In the US, 45.4 kg poultry meat is consumed every year by each person, compared to just 1.9 kg in India.
Pork consumption is negligible in India, while it is a major item elsewhere. In the European Union, 42.6 kg pork is consumed per person every year, while in the US, 29.7 kgs are consumed. Pork is a staple for Chinese, and so over 35 kg are consumed per person per year. And, we are not talking about various other types of meat, like turkey.
All these comparisons are for powerful economies, whether of the west or the east.
But the story would not be complete without mentioning the plight of Africa, where foodgrain consumption in 2007 was a mere 162 kg per year for each person, or about 445 grams per day. Don’t forget they are not getting any meat or milk products out there.
Perhaps, it is time to include the lifestyle choices of the West in the whole feverish debate on how to tackle the global food crisis.
These figures are collated by the US Department of Agriculture. US per capita grain consumption rose from 946 kg in 2003 to 1046 kg last year. India’s per capita consumption remained static in this period.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/US_eats_5_times_more_than_India_per_capita/rssarticleshow/3008449.cms
Friday, May 2, 2008
Price of Flour in Canada
I went into No Frills (grocery store) today to purchase Flour. Just to emphasise in Canada, No Frill is supposed to be one of the most cost saving place where one can shop. The shelves were nearly empty and there were not a lot to choose from. I stood there for about seven minutes in shock when I see the price. The only choice I had were Robin Hood Whole Wheat 10kg - $12.79 and No Name Unbleach white - $11.79. About 3 months ago the prices were approximately $6.00 and $5.00. There was a another woman there also staring at the flour in disbelieve. Eventually she walked away and didn't purchase any flour.
I did purchase the 2 bags of flour because I can still afford it. I kept wondering about the people who do not have that extra bit of money to cope with the higher prices. What will they do? Roti is a staple in South Asian meals. What will they have to give up in order to still get to eat roti.
I know this is all because of the high prices oh wheat. The high price of fossil fuel is pushing the price of wheat up. The economists are saying fossil Fuel is expensive because the demand is greater these days. China and India is trying to get industrialised now and we can't stop them because Europe and North America became industrialized without anyone telling them that they were demanding too much fossil fuel.
Type rest of the post here
I did purchase the 2 bags of flour because I can still afford it. I kept wondering about the people who do not have that extra bit of money to cope with the higher prices. What will they do? Roti is a staple in South Asian meals. What will they have to give up in order to still get to eat roti.
I know this is all because of the high prices oh wheat. The high price of fossil fuel is pushing the price of wheat up. The economists are saying fossil Fuel is expensive because the demand is greater these days. China and India is trying to get industrialised now and we can't stop them because Europe and North America became industrialized without anyone telling them that they were demanding too much fossil fuel.
Type rest of the post here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)