It's no secret how Africa can feed itself - grow more food.

That sort of naïve statement is fine for environmentalists who were born as part of the  Agricultural 1%, but it falls apart in the real world that exists outside fundraising campaigns. A large chunk of Africa doesn't grow food all that well, which historically has meant relying on the patronage of rich countries and cycles of famine - but that also has made it a political football.

As a young man I was inspired by Bob Geldof - he is a liberal of the Norm Borlaug mold, as opposed to its modern progressive social authoritarian and anti-science descendants. When he campaigned to send food to Africa, the world took notice. Decades later, President George W. Bush was still inspired by his work in Africa. In 2003, Geldof said, "The Bush administration is the most radical - in a positive sense - in its approach to Africa since Kennedy. Clinton was a good guy, but he did f*** all."

President Obama has a chance to be more like Kennedy and less like Clinton - and to shuck off the stigma that Democrats have become increasingly anti-science. In The Federalist, I outline how science can accomplish some real positive inroads in Africa.

The old approach - build more farms - won't work in Africa, because the land is not like California, so much forest would have to be cleared that the carbon increase would be substantial. It would be better for the environment to ship food on emissions-belching boats.

But modern science - pesticides that need fewer, more targeted applications and genetically modified foods that help food grow in harsher areas - can make it happen. Once that industry gets going, globalization can take care of the rest and the basic needs of Africa's people will be met, which leads to increased education and culture and a host of other benefits.

A Win-Win For Hungry Africans And Environmentalists - The Federalist

Photo Gbaku/Flickr