Introducing Helix, a security system connected to life, not the wall. Helix provides industry-leading wireless performance. Every Helix system is controlled from your smartphone or tablet, whether at home or on the road. And Helix brings the convenience features that extend far beyond security alone. Helix allows you to easily change the temperature from the comfort of your couch, or to save energy when away. You can schedule lights to come on to protect your unoccupied home. You can even let friends or service people have access to your home if you're unable to be there when they arrive, by controlling locks that can be installed on your doors. Helix allows you to be notified when your children get home from school and confirm the system remains secured until you return. Helix can be installed any place in the home, typically near the router. With a full line of high-performance wireless sensors providing 24-hour protection. With Helix, all security and automation functions can be completed through the phones and tablets you already use. And Helix delivers performance and features unmatched to the security industry. What are other ways Helix connects to your life?  Allowing your kids to easily disarm the system even if they don't have a phone, and notifying you they're home and safe. Helix, delivering security, home automation, smartphone control, and features to help you manage and protect your family every day. Make sure to subscribe to our YouTube page and click the Show More tab underneath the video where you can view valuable links pertaining to this product, similar how-to videos, and our low-cost, no-contract alarm monitoring services.


United States waters, the mighty French battleship Richelieu proceeds to an American Navy yard for refitting and repair. First of more than 50 French warships to be equipped to fight against the Axis. The cruiser Moncom puts in for repairs and supplies. Built in 1936, she'll soon be back in action. Vice Admiral Raymond Fanar, heading the French Naval Commission to the United States, salutes his flag as he comes to place every available warship flying the tricolor on the side of the United Nations. In New York City, French sailors are introduced to free American refreshments. Quite a treat. Now parading up Broadway, men of the French Navy return New York's hospitality with a gala review. French blue jackets and marines escorted by units of British and Americans, giving the big city the war's first view of America's traditional allies, now marching shoulder to shoulder in the common cause. Shouts of vive la France tell these Frenchmen that the United Nations are with them in their fight for liberty. In front of New York's historic city hall, Mère LaGuardia, with high-ranking French and United States dignitaries, officially welcomes the French Navy men to America of an awakened France, sworn to free their native land. One of the dramatic scenes of the war, the rebirth of French naval might, the beginning of France's return to her traditional position among the great nations of the world. Madame Chiang Kai-shek, first lady of China, is welcomed to Washington by Mrs. Roosevelt, first lady of the United States. Madame Chiang, for 15 weeks under medical care in New York, appears quite recovered as she hurries to greet President Roosevelt, who awaits her in his automobile. Her momentous meeting with the president is her first public appearance in the United States. A guest of the White House during her stay in the capital, the Chinese Joan of Arc has a busy calendar. Senators, lawmakers, are eager to shake her hand. A tremendous ovation marks her dramatic appearance before the House of Representatives. Here, American educated Madame Chiang Kai-shek, called the most powerful woman in the world, addresses the elected representatives of the American people. The lives of the American people have before you the glorious opportunity of carrying on your ancestors beyond the frontiers of physical and geographical limitations. You have today before you the immeasurably greater opportunity to implement these same ideals and to help bring about the liberation of man's spirit in every part of the world.  This American outpost in Tunisia as Nazi dive bombers launch an attack to dislodge the allies from hard-won African airfields, one after another Nazi planes plummet to earth. At the mountains, American forces are poised for the opening round in the battle to join ranks with Montgomery's 8th Army, states and British tank destroyers blasting at point-blank range.  A war of attack and counter-attack with United Nations forces pushing doggedly on. Advance units of the British 8th Army enter Tripoli, metropolis of Libya. Climax of a drive that chased the Nazis 1,300 miles in 13 weeks. A monument to the wolf that suckled the twin founders of Rome looks down upon victorious British tanks. Scene of official surrender. General Montgomery receives the Italian governor, his Lord Mayor and Chief of Police. Jack flying over Libya, General Montgomery is not one to rest on his laurels. Riding through the city that once was the pride of Mussolini's colonial empire, General Montgomery pushes on to join the Americans and the British 1st Army in the fight for Tunisia. Already, his tanks are on the move toward the final battle for North Africa. In a desert, America reveals new evidence of her growing might. A completely armored division, one of the latest, trained and ready to embark for action overseas. 500 vehicles, trucks and tanks begin to roll. An impressive and reassuring spectacle for America and her allies. Part of America's vast armored armada, dedicated to the victory of the United Nations.


Hello everybody and welcome to another hobby cheating video and today we're going to talk about the color pink. That's right, it's time for the next entrant into our ongoing series of exploring colors and today pink. So pink is a fascinating color, just to talk about it and sort of what it is. Pink is effectively, it's sort of like a tinted red, tint just means to add white, but it's actually a little more complicated than that. It effectively occupies the space in between red and magenta. There are lots of variations in pink. Lots of them tend to have a little bit of bluish color in them. For example, just the standard Vallejo pink here. You can tell that that isn't just red plus white, but there's a slight blue hue to that. It can occur a lot in nature. A lot of things that we would think of as being pink in nature often have a bit of a blue hue to them. Some of them can be just more, where you really see the blue is when you hold these two next to each other. This one being this traditional bubblegum pink being more of a just sort of red plus a high tint. Obviously, it also comes in fluorescence. You see pink show up a lot in things like synth wave designs. Down here, I've got a series of colors. This is Harvester Flesh from Scale 75. This is actually Brown Rose, but you can see it's a very pinky color. Over here, we've got Pale Pink. These two are obviously intended as sort of Caucasian flesh tones. Pink, as a word, as an identification of a color, didn't really come into existence or usage until the 17th century. In many languages, they still don't use the word pink, but instead they just use rose. Rose is obviously, we think of a lot of roses, as often there are many pink colors of roses. Pink itself is named after the flower, the pink flower, that's the name of the flower. That's where the color gets its name from rather directly. Pink does occur in nature quite frequently, whether it be we think of things like sunsets where because of the Rayleigh scattering, the sunset can appear, the horizon, I should say, can appear as pink, or whether we're talking about crystals or lots of natural flowers. There are plenty of pink animals. Caucasian skin tone is often referred to as often being very pink.  We've all ordered a steak and the question has been kind of, you know, should it be pink in the middle or something like that, right? So pink is a really interesting color because it does occur, unlike a lot of colors we've reviewed so far, it does occur quite frequently in nature and it's quite eye-catching. Pink has a very high brightness, usually because of the sort of white content of it. Naturally occurring pigments that were used in art for a long time were made by mixing white pigments into other pigments to get a nice pink color. Pink became very popular in art as a skin tone throughout the Renaissance period, usually in the 15th, 16th, 17th century. You would see a lot of artists using, you know, pink-influenced tones, something like that, to do a lot of skin tones. And indeed, to this day, lots of miniature paints still have influences of a lot of pink. So for example, our Bugman's Glow here has a lot of purple, but there's still certainly a bit of a pink resonance to that as well. So you see that show of a lot. Culturally, obviously, pink in at least modern America, where I'm more familiar with, pink tends to be associated with female, or with females. It tends to be a girl color, quote-unquote, but of course that's not restricted only to that. And in fact, that is a historical switch. Pink in clothing became popular for women in the 20th century when dyes became strong enough, or we had artificial dyes, that could actually survive the washing process. So it was actually quite rare that you had anything but a very faded pink in clothes, or if you did have pink clothes, you were very, very wealthy because you would have a special dress made and then wouldn't really need to wash it. You would only wear it once. Most folks couldn't, like a regular pink dye would come out in the wash, and so you didn't see pink in a lot of clothing until the 20th century. In the early 20th century, pink was actually more associated with boys and with the male gender. It was seen as blood and having vitality and sort of violence and things like that. So pink was seen as a very male color. Blue was seen as a very female color. Sometime around, you know, tends to argue of exactly when. There's lots of different cultural milestones, whether it be famous women wearing pink dresses or, you know, movies or the use of color or marketing and displays or children's toys, like whatever. It's hard to say exactly. It's just there was a cultural shift that moved pink over to being a color specifically more associated with women. And indeed to this day, you'll still usually see like a whole bunch of stuff end up being colored pink for no good reason. If it's intended for women, women's razors or other associated types of things. And those often will also have a bit of a price markup for no good reason other than there for women, hence the use of the term the pink tax, which you'll hear sometimes. So at any rate, pink is a great color to use in painting because not only can we use it for things like skin tone. If we're aiming for a softer, it tends to have this sort of feeling of softness to it. And so if you're trying to paint somebody who looks very feminine or very innocent or very young, pink skin tones will tend to resonate that emotion. Pink over here can also be really influencing because it can be great to just be eye catching. So I mentioned the synthwave schemes earlier. Those are very popular and can be very powerful when it comes to you know, making an army that really stands out from five feet away. So on my palate, I've got some of the regular pink. And right here I have a squig, so let's make a pink squig. We're going to not use a scaven for once. But obviously we can have lots of different colors of pink here. I'm using again, this is just Vallejo pink. And one of the things about pink that's going to become obvious right away when we put it on is that it's a very it's a very weak color in how the pigment is formulated in most cases. And by that, what I simply mean is tends to still be quite transparent, especially when you go to something like the fluorescent pinks, they just don't cover well. Now, that's a factor of fluorescence as much of a factor of anything else. But the pink still having largely a lot of red influence means it does remain relatively transparent. So if we to look at like our fluorescent pink here, let's just put a little bit of that up top. You'll see that that obviously a lot shows through there. I can still see a lot of gray, especially as I smooth it out, right? Very patchy paint work there. Now, when it comes to working with pink, the one of the important things to do beforehand because it is transparent is focus on the under shading, much like we talked about with yellow before, having a bright under shade is really important. Now, unlike with yellow, where I needed to turn everything warm so that those brown tones, those ivory tones would show up through the yellow and make it naturally very bright, you can stick to a cold scheme with pink. As I said, pink often does have some blue in it. So having a sort of blue or cold gradient of zenithal underneath is perfectly fine. However, pink often can take a few coats to get on there. And if you want it to be bright, if you want a really bright pink, I think a lot of people thought is, well, I'll go to something like this. This is titillating pink, which is meant to be a mix of the old 88, you know, late 80s, early 90s, citadel colors.  And it's true, you can get something. These extremely bright pastel bubblegum pinks will cover a lot better. OK. Still not great, but better, partially because they just have more white in them. But the real answer is not to try to change the pink color you want to use. The real answer is to simply make sure that you have a bright under shade. So just like with the yellows or reds or any other highly transparent color, by having something that's bright white underneath, that's going to make the color itself pop more. OK. Now, one of the one of the great tricks here is that you can use other pinks to under shade pinks. And specifically in the in the Caucasian flesh tone range is where you can have a lot of success with that. We've talked about the power in a recent video of universal highlight colors and things like light flesh or this pale pink or any color in this range. So, for example, here's the light flesh from Vallejo. You can see those are pretty close, right? So any of those colors can be fine to under shade with. So, for example, if you were zenith on your model, maybe instead of using white, you use something like a pale pink or a light flesh or something like that. And that's going to make the pink color pop more. OK. Now, if you don't have that super bright color on there, that's OK. You can still highlight pink. Now, there's lots of choices of what to highlight pink with. But my honest answer is don't use white, which sounds strange. But the reason I say that is because ultimately pink is already a quite desaturated color. It just because of the nature of how these pigments are created, it will tend to already have quite a level of desaturation to it by adding a lot more white. You can tend to sort of kill the impact of the color very fast. So instead, what I've used here for this highlight that I'm just wet blending out real quick, there we go. What I've used for that instead is our good friend, Ice Yellow. That would sound strange to combine yellow with pink. But in fact, they're just natural partners and they go together very well. And you can see how that provides a much more naturalistic highlight. It makes it feel like it's in that sort of like it's in an environment. You get a nice natural color. Ice Yellow is my favorite thing to highlight pink with. OK. Now, that being said, of course, you could use flesh tones, which we've talked about in previous videos. You could use like a pale pink or a harvester flesh or something like that. Some kind of Caucasian, fluent skin tone, light flesh, whatever. You could use a lighter color pink. So, for example, maybe here's where you could use your more bubblegum pinks that tend to occur in the range. But I do want to warn you that that's going to create a very different effect. Right. You're going to get this sort of non. You move my light here, so I'm quite as bright. You know, that will get you a sort of it will actually color shift the pink over and could feel a little strange. Ice Yellow, to me, just one, you get better coverage than you do out of any of the pinks. Two, it tends to provide a more naturalistic highlight. Now, when we're talking shadows, since I like ice yellow and to use a bit of a warmth in my upper pink, since it has that red influence and it's a little warm. For me, I like a good purple tone. So here I've got some Elendil violet, but you can use any color. When we're talking purple, I will say I like to have purples that are influenced in the blue spectrum, which probably sounds strange out of the gate because the squig itself or the pink itself again feels red and white. Why would we introduce blue? Well, as I mentioned earlier, these colors do have a little bit of blue in them. And so by introducing the purple color, we can actually get a pretty nice mixture now. I just threw that on there nice and thick. And by starting in the blue spectrum and then bringing it together, we get a nice cold shadow for the warm pink, which in general feels pretty good. It's just going to feel like a pretty natural extension of that color, OK? Fairly nice naturalistic tone to again match with our warmer shadows or sorry, warmer highlights, I apologize. But purple doesn't have the hard hit that something like blue might have that would be a very different experience. OK. So you can see there how we get a really nice fun transition between those colors. For me, that kind of purple to ice yellow with the pink as the middle as your midtone just ends up feeling really good. Now, other colors you can use to shade your your pink, you can certainly go into more of a red tone so you could get out more of like a deep magenta or crimson. That would certainly work if you wanted to stay completely in the pink spectrum, you can move into a more crimson, a more deep magenta, anything like that. You can get out something more blue. So if you want to if you do want to push the whole thing super blue, then something like a deep blue or a Payne's gray ink that can also work very well. So there you go, that's pink. In the end, remember your keys when you're painting with pink are start with your under shade, make sure it's nice and bright.  And if you want that pink to pop, if you want poppy pinks, then you've got to have a bright color underneath. When you're talking about highlights, you have a lot of choices from your existing Caucasian bright flesh tones or light flashes to your ice yellows or anything like that. But this is my particular favorite. Again, you can see how that looks there. When you're talking about your shading, just think about how you want your shadow colors to move. I like a nice blue, purple, like a blue violet color as that then creates a nice spectrum from a warm pink highlight to a cold bluish influence shadow. But again, your mileage may vary. If you want to go more cold, then you lean more into the blue. If you want to stay more warm, then you stay in the magenta or the deep crimson or something like that. All of those are going to feel perfectly fine. It's just about capturing the paint scheme you want. So there you go. That's exploring colors pink.   So with that, I do hope you enjoyed that. Give it a like. If you did, subscribe for additional hobby cheating in the future. If you've got any questions, feel free to pop those down below. I always answer every question. But as always, I very much appreciate you watching this one and we'll see you next time.


What's up everybody? Jason here from jaspyscasebricks.com. We just filled up a quick little R&B to help fill up black football picker team number 11. So this is a random number block randomizer for 11 teams in that break that include the Cowboys all the way down to the Saints. So you have a piece of all those teams for this price here at $54.99. And again, as it works, you get a random number from $0-9. And if you get randomized number 3 as your block of number, you'll get any card with a 3 being the first number next to the dash on the left side. So for example, if we hit a card that is 13 out of 99 from any of these teams above in the break, that'll go to number 3 block. 3 out of 25, 43 out of 49, 93 out of 99 and so on. Number 3 will get that card. All redemption cards will go spot 0. Even if we know it's a 1-on-1, it'll still go to spot 0. And of course, if there's any unnumbered cards, we'll randomize them all in one lot. So there's the teams, here's the randomizer, customer names, and numbers. So let's roll it, and we got ourselves a 2-4, 6 times. Sean, getting a lot of spawn mojo. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Benjamin, down to Aaron. Alright, 6 times here, 0-3-9. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. 2 down to 0. Alright, so Benjamin you have 2, Deborah with 4, Charles with 7, Corey with 6, Sean you have 1, any 1-on-1's will be yours, Aaron with 8, Benjamin with 5, Aaron with 9, Patrick with 3, and Aaron with 0. Any redemptions will be yours.  Appreciate it guys.


SCP-773 is a standard English-style dartboard. It is divided into the standard 20 segments and an inner and outer bull's eye ring, along with the standard double and triple bands. SCP-773 was acquired by Agent W. from a Mr. W. of Glauchester, England residence. Mr. W. was found dead in his home with several ruptured blood vessels and a heart attack which proved fatal. Police were unable to identify any cause of death. After investigation into the death by Agent W, it was discovered that the dartboard in his study had been acquired from the organization known as Marshall Carter and Dark LTD recently, after wiring a large sum of money to the organization three weeks prior. Upon recovery of the object, a set of instructions were recovered from a panel in the rear of the board, which also contained a set of diamond-tipped darts with a space to insert small strips of paper.


Have you ever wondered how species get discovered, how we know when something's new? I'm Dr Haley from the Research School of Biology at the Australian National University and I'm a parasite taxonomist. I examine worms like this and I describe them. If they're a new species we need to tell the world about this. Firstly I do this by collecting small mammals. Those small mammals might be host to parasites and I take those parasites back to the lab. When I'm back in the lab I take my parasites and I treat them onto slides like this, make them flat and see-through so that I can look at them under a microscope and look at the features that make them different from all the other parasite species that we know. I describe the morphology of these species, looking at the key features that differentiate them, things that make it new and different from all the others. And then I get arty and I draw the worms inside and out. The final step is to name the new species. People sometimes like to name their new species after a feature that that animal has. Maybe it's shape or the way it looks. People can sometimes choose to name their animal after the place where it was collected or maybe name it after the person who collected it. But because I describe parasites I also have the potential to name my new species after people that I don't like. So then I submit my paper and when it's published and appears in print, voila, that's a new species. So that's the process of species discovery. Taxonomists like me find, identify, describe and publish information on all the species around you. Because if no one knows what these species are no one can study them.


Everybody forced tier ripping 2023 bowman chrome baseball hobby and choice eight box mixer number 12 random teams random right now Then we'll get started. Good luck everybody This is an 11 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 and 11 William C down to Joseph M and then the team's 11 times here 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Reds down to twins William C Reds Justin K Dodgers Jonathan L diamondbacks Ryan M. Phillies eddy G white socks nationals Steve B. Cubs Jays Robert B Rangers Don H. Mariners Jacob P. Tigers Mark L. Brewer Zach S. Pirates Edward S. Padres Zach S. Orioles Alexandros Braves Matthew S. Giants Marlins and Cardinals name Q L. Guardians Nick v. Royals Zach S. with the Angels Wayming Rockets Garrett M. Mets Jeff M. Red Sox Chang S. Ray's Holly M. Yankees Brayden a Astros Adam v. A's and Joseph M twins get these results posted. We're gonna get started here Maybe Carl. Maybe so I'll see too much competition these days on there's just too much competition All right y'all 23 to go on our football mixer tonight 12 on the warts here as well. It's getting where it's here moving Chargers just stopped scoring apparently They don't want to score no more points Rangers are Astros guys Rangers are Astros Carol. It came to the league diamondbacks Please crush it last night Yeah, first auto Rockies Brian Bettencourt He just ran for 17 yards on third and 15 Carol iconic with a green a rookie of any Pasquantino to 99 Kansas City Yeah, dude, Nasty Nate's going Rangers got it tonight Nathan of Aldi's going now dude. He's got it It's postseason goat right there. It's mostly like eight. I think iconic Adley Any rangers gonna win That's who says you score They says Rangers wouldn't buy one two to one. That'd be that'd be nuts Speckle the two ninety nine Miguel Blase for the Red Sox for the good Edo That went nowhere First auto for the Astros Luke Berryhill. Oh, you can eat 20 bucks. What? You should shimmer to one ninety nine Brady house for the Nationals. I had nothing I Like a yogurt aqua pink to 125 Ludwig Espinosa first bowman for the Cubs to 125 Come on. Let's go pick it up here. Show us a retro fractor. Yeah, there we go mark. Exactly I wish you could play music on YouTube. So I listen to Taylor Swift albums all the way through Taylor Swift in sync Jonas Brothers All of Sean's preferred listening's Refractor first one auto to 499 Joey s s a's Here I tell us just gonna do a cover of inner Sandman Tristan costs us on the rookie variations short print for the Red Sox. That's a solid card for certain Score some points chargers By a base. All right refractor rookie is Christopher morale to 499 for the Cubs Yeah, that was a that was a crazy game, too PJ Walker, dude, who needs Watson when you got Walker to 499 refractor first auto Paul Macintosh Marlins or not purple, but just shimmer Henry chivalry twins first bowman They've been so conflicted watching the watching the Patriots. I'm like, oh, man We got a chance to beat the bills here and then I choked away. I was like, oh, there we go Like a bit because the bill scored to take a lead. I was like, okay, there we go.  We refracted a 150 is Gilbert for the Astros. This card dust is hidden You need to get the air filter put it like right here Yeah, we need one that's for like Like the size of like a whole house essentially just for this one this road 30 square feet Alright box three of a hobby. How we doing? Oh, man. Yeah. Oh, yeah, we do got both Got it all Check right here late sports cards calm for basketball. There's noir first off the line and contenders optic for a football There's a Sunday. There's a big mixer. There's pinini one. There's an eight box mixer. There's mosaic choice Bowman Chrome University We got it all All right teams are moving hearing more spots coming in for football for baseball and for basketball First woman autopirates is Junsock shim. All right speckle there to 299. Yes, I'm our Sadie's twins There's five to go and gilded all those teams are on sale. It's Orioles. It's Rangers I believe the Braves are also left the Mets are there a lot of good teams on sale Sisca orange yellow vaporwave to 75 a chivalry for the twins fourth quarter Gold speckle first woman autograph for the Royals to 50 junior Marin very nice hip for Kansas City Shimmer first woman Edwin Solano for the Nationals Matt Mercer Refractor first woman hobby a revost Pirates to 499 last hobby then we got four choice That's that's pretty true mark. That's pretty true Yeah, I've been here so many First woman auto white Sox Kristen Mina it is Pretty crazy Pretty awesome place Orange refractor is Luis on hella Coon got a 25 Texas Nice orange great Mets prospect now Good job by the Mets getting him back in the Scherzer trade another orange Orange is running together here is Hosong Kim going to the Padres on the World Baseball Classic flag 1225 Hosong Kim Padres First woman auto for the twins Ricardo olivar Arias Future shimmer to 199 Nelson Rada angels Guys, we've got 2023 tier one baseball early release early release breaks on Tuesday. I'm fanatics live Yo, Andrew Vargas Sup Nicholas. I was going Nicholas our day is going. Well It's 100 J rod for the Mariners Hey, Julius. How's it going?  I don't know why I Geez They're going nowhere. All right for choice now. Let's see it first woman auto Mets Diego Mosquera Cool dolphin jersey and chain That's right. It's all right. Let's go baby first woman auto Philly is Marcus Lee sang And a purple refractor first woman autograph Cardinals Gordon Rousseffo 42 of 250. Let's see some bigger hits here Come on three boxes left I've also got some Gilded coming up teams left and gilded are on sale braves Orioles Mets Cardinals Rangers Yes, bots are moving in though guys Kind of across the board. Well, we got gilded which is the closest stuff here Mixers at 23 as well.  Sorry Abner you rebate one you rebate.   I was saying they should do It was Monday night. I was like, they should do glow in the dark cards. I was like, oh, is that a show?  All right. That was a better box Let's see if we can do even better keep it going up super fracture super fracture I just need to get a super fracture shirt. Just the entire thing is just gold vinyl first bowman auto Henry Sevely for the twins Cannot be that expensive to just make a shirt that's a stretcher first bowman autograph Brewers Dylan O'Rea Boy Sean's Sean's favorite right there Dylan O'Rea I'm sure Nicholas will say it got refractor first auto Joey S. Does the 499 a's I Don't think you can do can patent that pattern just the whole thing be gold vinyl that they do Now they got a stop at your homes again. That's a complete That was a forward pass First bowman auto Christopher Torian for the Diamondbacks. That was a bad drop too. Oh Man Edwards a layer buddy Touring for the Diamondbacks next up choice the 150 first bowman autograph Well-been Francisco 134 point 50. That's a nice hit for the Guardians That's you're looking for right there number to 150 great card clean auto For the most part pretty clean and a refractor first bowman autograph of BJ cook 333 or 499 a's To be wearing gold vinyl stuff around I don't know if I'm cool enough to wear a shirt like that Look you got to be cool to pull something like that off, but I'm not braves so Yeah, exact guy's cool Orioles Mets Cardinals Rangers For to go and gilded everybody Orioles Mets Cardinals Rangers all on sale my discount on one of those big teams. It's there It is there quick recap time. Thanks for joining everybody Decent break nothing crazy crazy, but some pretty nice stuff 299 yaw some Mercedes in place 2199 house in Beretta to 150 Gilbert Auto 150 is Enriquez You got to 125 SB knows out of 99 Pasquantino to 75 chivalry to 25 Louisa, Nalakunya and Hassan Kim Base autos Christopher Torian Dylan O'Rey Henry chivalry Why almost did it again, dude? Abner you're eBay almost did it again Marcus Lee sang Diego Moschera Ricardo Oliver Kristen Mena Junsukshim they should do retro factor one you're eBay and One of the upcoming bowman sets All right to 499 we had as this base auto Berry Hill Bettencourt refractor McIntosh asked this again B.J. Cook few autos for the A's there SB knows at a 299 cubs 250 Graceffo Cardinals to 50 Marin for the Royals and a 150 Francisca for the Guardians on the choice auto That'll do it. Thanks everybody. We're moving on now to some more baseball


We have continued to suffer at the hand of the parliament, madam speaker. Simoning us as private citizens to be appearing before parliamentary committees for opinions we express out there. We have advised several times that first of all parliament presiding officers at parliament are not above report. And citizens of the public of Zambia, including myself, we are bestowed with the right and freedom of expression. Good afternoon sir. Good afternoon. We went to allow interviews here. Since when? Yeah. I have been a member of parliament here, presiding themselves in the precincts of parliament. No, no, no, no. Done already. It's done and interviewed about it. Only MPs allowed to be interviewed. It's a kind of attitude that has come for the first time during this parliament. Where are your cameras? Good. Take a video view. Why? This attitude of beginning to make the people's assembly become sacred. Sacred to what? That we cannot even speak on our own assembly in the premises of our own assembly. I have as much right to this assembly as anybody else. I cast a vote to have representation here just like the millions of Zambians. So this business of saying that there is no, I don't have the right to express myself is not correct.


Thank you, Bas, for that very warm and generous introduction, so much so that if my late father was present in this audience, he would be wondering who the hell you were talking about, but my late mother, God bless her soul, would have agreed mostly with you. Distinguished guests, delegates, ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for inviting me to present this talk at the Fifth International Rice Congress, and as a Singaporean I'm delighted that you have chosen Singapore to host the Fifth International Rice Congress. I know from your past convention, your first four congresses were largely located in a large producing country. So this I see is departure from the norm, but a welcome departure so that you can include more of the ecosystem even beyond producers, including consumers, brands, retailers, the trade, et cetera, in trying to develop an enduring global sustainable rice production ecosystem. I'm going to be speaking today, as Bas mentioned briefly, on two issues, reimagining global agriculture and secondly, reimagining the rice bowl, both are interlinked and connected, and they have interlinked costs as well, and I'll try and explain the connection between the two. But before I start, I thought it would be useful because I'm going to be speaking from two vantage points to briefly introduce the two organizations that I represent today. So one is as a co-founder and CEO of OLAM, and OLAM is a leading global agribusiness. We are selectively integrated in the agricultural value chain, we are upstream in farming and plantation, so we grow over 21 different crops in 26 different countries and that includes farming of rice in different places, but we also do grow almonds and pistachios and walnuts, palm and rubber, coffee and cocoa, black pepper, and the whole host of broad acre annual row crops. Secondly we are involved in supply chain and trading, so that includes origination and sourcing of agricultural raw materials directly from the farm gate in the producing countries. It involves processing of these raw materials into intermediate products, and we have over 206 factories around the world that processes cocoa beans into cocoa butter powder, liqueur cake, or coffee into soluble coffee, peanuts into peanut paste and so on and so forth. And we are selectively involved in the downstream where we provide fortified packaged foods particularly in Africa where we are focused on the downstream business there. So we are a selectively integrated player in the whole agricultural value chain. We employ roughly 76,000 people, we operate in about 71 countries around the world and we have revenues of approximately 20 billion US dollars, we are a relatively young company, we started life in 1989, so we are 29 years old, we celebrate our 30th anniversary next year and that is an infant or toddler in this industry. Most of the incumbents and participants in this industry have very long pedigrees and long editations. So Cargill is 154 or 55 years old, Dreyfus is 167 years old, Boongi is close to 200 years old, in Indian Fman is about 245 years old. So compared to all of them, we are a young toddler in this business, just learning to stand on our own and take a few steps and walk. I want to introduce a second role or hack that I'm wearing today and that is introducing the World Business Council for Sustainable Development where I have the privilege to serve as a chairman and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development is a combination of about 200 organizations around the world represented by the CEOs focused on assuring a transition to a more sustainable world and the role of the private sector in assuring this transition to a more sustainable world. Together these 200 companies represent revenues of about $8.9 trillion and employ about 19 million people worldwide covering different sectors and most of the global economies. So it is an institution with far reaching influence. And at WBCSD, we work on five programs. The first program that we work on is Food Land and Water because we believe that this is a big meta system in the world. And if you can make that system sustainable, you can really change the world. The second is on energy and the circular economy, which is another big meta system. And if you can produce sustainable energy and make a transition to sustainable energy, we can change the world. The third program that we run is on urbanization or we call it urban urbanization and mobility, urban mobility. So if we can have more sustainable forms of urban mobility as urbanization, revolution is happening across the world, we can also change the world. The fourth program that we run is on redefining value, looking beyond just financial and economic capital and trying to assess what are the other forms of capital that we create when we set and run a business and grow and scale a business. And that includes human capital, intellectual capital, intangible capital, natural capital, and social capital. How do you capture and measure the value of these strategic assets that a company builds that creates long term enduring value? A study done on the S&P 500 companies show that in 1975, about 84% of the market capitalization of these S&P 500 companies was explained by the tangible assets and only about 16% of their market capitalization was explained by the intangible assets. In 2015 that got reversed, only 13% of the S&P 500 companies market capitalization is explained by their tangible assets. And 87% of the market capitalization of the S&P 500 companies today is explained by the intangible assets, the intellectual capital, intangible capital, natural capital, social capital, and human capital. So the fourth program that WBCST is focused on is to help companies redefine the way they look at building long term enduring sustainable value. And the last program we are focused on is really social capital, which is about people and how do you build human and social capital in our companies and in our ecosystems. So I'm going to be addressing this topic of reimagining global agriculture as well as reimagining the rice bowl from the vantage point of these two experiences and roles that I play today. So let's start with the first problem, reimagining global agriculture. The first question is, why does global agriculture need to be reimagined? And that's because I believe that the global food and agricultural system is broken. And why is it broken? One 817 million people go to bed hungry every day today. And if you have a working food and agricultural production system, that should not be the case. 1.9 billion people suffer from micronutrient deficiencies are in some respects malnourished. That is the second reason why I believe the global food production system is broken. About 2 billion people are overweight and obese, of which about 650 million approximately is obese. And the non chronic diseases that results from that kind of lifestyle is putting untold pressures on the health care budgets of these governments. A UN Chicago Council of Business Affairs study shows that all the global economies put together will spend about $35 trillion by 2020 in terms of health care expenditure to take care of and tackle the non chronic diseases resulting from being overfed and undernourished. And that is the reason why Japan has now introduced the Metabol law. And in Japan as per this law, if you're overweight and obese, you have to go for compulsory dieting classes and exercise classes. And if you do not do that, you're going to be additionally taxed. And the province in which you live and reside will also be taxed. Hungary introduced the fatty foods tax. Seven additional countries now introduced a fatty foods tax. About 14 countries have introduced a sugar sweetened beverage tax. Now all of this is because of the effects of malnutrition in its various forms. That is the third reason why I believe the food and global agricultural system is broken. 25% of the world's children today are stunted. Many of them are wasted across the globe. This is the average world average. But if you look at the developing economies, nearly a third of the children and developing economies are stunted. And many of them are wasted. That is yet another reason why I believe the global food and agricultural system is broken. The fifth reason is that one third of the food that we produce roughly is wasted. And that is equivalent to the entire agricultural acreage in China. The food that is produced in a country of the size of China is being wasted. And the energy required to produce it, the water required to produce it, the greenhouse and carbon dioxide emissions required to produce that food is the travesty of justice. And if you look at the 550 million small farmer households, 500 to 550 million supporting about 2 billion people in terms of livelihoods dependent on agriculture, about 60% of the small-holder farmers fall under the 817 million people that go to bed every day. So it's a travesty of justice that the people who produce our food go hungry. And of the people who are poor, 836 million people fall below the poverty line of $1.90 per day, new threshold according to the World Bank of poverty. And there are about 836 million people below the poverty line. Well, we've done enormously well in reducing people under poverty by about 1.1 billion people from 1990. The fact that there are so many people below the poverty line, a large proportion of the people below the poverty line are also small-holder farmers. And one of the other reasons why I believe the world food production and agricultural system is broken is the cost of producing this food is not truly costed today. So FAO commissioned true cost to do a study on what is the cost of externalities in producing food. And they asked them to study the cost of externalities, the true cost of producing food in the four major cereal crops of food crops, which is wheat, rice, corn and soybean. And they mapped out 80% of producing regions in the world, roughly 47 countries, which produce 80% of these four major food crops. And they established that the benefits derived from nature to produce 80% of those four major food crops was 1.15 trillion dollars. So that is the benefits that the food producers producing these four crops took from nature to produce those crops. But because nature's mother nature's back office was not set up, it didn't issue them those invoices. So we assume that to be free. Right. And they also asked them to study the cost, the externalities, the cost of externalities and the true cost of producing 80% of the world's four major protein items, poultry meat, lamb or sheep meat, pork meat and beef meat. And true cost established that the cost of externalities in producing that, which was not priced in, was 1.12 trillion dollars. Sorry, 1.82 trillion dollars. The combined cost of externalities was 2.97 trillion dollars. If you want to understand the enormity of that number, in the global financial crisis, we are estimated to have lost financial capital of the two of roughly 2.5 to 3 trillion dollars. But every year, the invisible cost of nature in terms of what we are consuming from nature, which is not being costed and accounted for, is staggering nearly 3 trillion dollars. Natural capital that is disappearing from under a very gnosis without us being able to be aware of. So the challenge for all of us is how do we feed a growing population which is going to grow from 7.45 billion people today to about 8.3 billion people by 2030 to roughly 9.5 billion people in the medium fertility scenario by 2050 and between 11 and 12 billion people by 2100. How we are going to feed them is the first question, but more importantly, can we feed them within the boundaries and limits of the one planet that we all inherit? We have just one planet, planet A, we do not have a planet B. And if you're going to continue to produce the food with 3 trillion dollars of externalities that are not being costed in and 3 trillion dollars of annualized invisible costs to nature, we are not having a sustainable food production system. And we need to therefore fundamentally reimagine global agriculture. And while that might sound a very big pronouncement, what I mean by reimagining global agriculture is how do you produce more food, feed, fiber, fuel to feed this growing population within the planetary boundaries? And let's therefore examine the planetary boundaries. A group of earth scientists have worked for over 60 years to crystallize the nine man-made precautionary boundaries in terms of climate, geochemical and geophysical processes, which if you breach those scientifically determined targets or boundaries, we could have very disruptive and cataclysmic climate change impacts. The first of these nine planetary boundaries is climate change. And that is measured in terms of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. According to the scientists, we cannot have more than 350 parts per million of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Against that precautionary boundary condition, we are today at about 415 million parts, parts per million, GAG concentrations in the atmosphere. So this first boundary condition we've already breached. And much of it is because of fossil use. We still depend 85% of our energy requirements on fossil fuel. Renewables is beginning to catch up. Much of the progress in renewable technologies are now attaining grid parity levels. So we expect adoption and take up of renewable energy to pick up. We look up in the atmosphere and you'll see this vast immense expanse of space above us. But when you look at the atmosphere from the space, from space, it is a very thin sliver. The atmosphere is a very thin sliver. Today we view that as an open sewer and we pump about 110 million tons of heat-warming, global warming, heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere every day of the year, 365 days of the year. And that is equivalent. The cumulative energy trapped in the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that we have emitted over the past is equivalent to exploding 400 Hiroshima-class atomic bombs. 400 Hiroshima-class atomic bombs every day of the year, 365 days of the year. As a result, global temperatures have risen roughly one degree centigrade from the pre-industrial era, from the 1880s. And global temperatures are rising at 0.17 degrees centigrade every decade. And in 2015, 196 countries around the world with one now notable exception came together and committed to preventing global warming from exceeding two degrees centigrade by the end of the century. By 2100, but preferably to keep it under one and a half degrees centigrade. Now, the inter-government panel on climate change just last Monday two weeks ago issued a new report saying that there will be a huge difference in global climate between one and a half degrees centigrade and two degrees centigrade. And just the half a degree centigrade, higher temperature, global warming can result in catastrophic consequences. And they said that's the difference in sea level rise of 10 centimeters between one and a half degrees warming and two degrees warming. And they said it is a difference between the Arctic summer sea ice melting, a phenomenon that occurs today once in 100 years to a phenomenon at two degrees centigrade and one and a half degrees centigrade and a two degrees centigrade will occur once every decade. In the decade 1900 to 1910, the average extreme weather events average three in that decade per year. In 2017, we had 500. The floods in Kerala and India where I'm from, I hail from Kerala or Harvey and Irma and Florence and now Michael. Right. Every day, when you wake up and watch the TV or read a newspaper, it's like walking through the book of revelations. One nightmare extreme event after the other. On the 6th of August in the Academy of Science, there was a real provoking article that said that even by some miracle, we achieved the Paris Accord climate targets. In terms of all countries behaving themselves and fulfilling their commitments in terms of nationally determined intended contributions to reduce greenhouse gases. Even if you achieved it, there is a risk that we have now already set in motion a process that could lead to what they call a hot house earth scenario. The global temperatures could rise on an average four to five degrees centigrade. As a result of many events happening and the cumulative compounding effect of those events. So one of which is a thawing of the permafrost. The second is the loss of methane hydrates on the ocean floor. The third is the reduction of the carbon sinks in both the land and oceans. The fourth is the melting of the Arctic summer sea ice. The fifth is the melting of the Antarctic summer ice. The sixth is the reduction in the polar ice caps, the thickness of the polar ice caps. It's melting very rapidly. All of these are like dominoes, one falling on the other that can result in a major catastrophic climate change cumulilbum factor. So that's the first boundary condition under which we need to grow more food, feed, fiber and fuel, but within that boundary condition, not in excess of the boundary condition. Second boundary condition. The third scientist came up with this biodiversity and biosphere integrity, as they call it. So according to them, they have determined that we cannot lose more than 10 species for every million species that we own each year. That's a target. That's a precautionary boundary against the target. We're today losing a thousand species against the 10, a thousand species for every million species that we have each year. Every tiny totic fauna flora that is there in the global ecosystem has a specific role to play. We are in almond plantations in Australia, California. It has to be cross pollinated by bees. For every almond acre that we own, we need two and a half to three bee hives per acre. We buy billions of bees. Whoever thought the bee will issue as an invoice. We spend every year between eight and 20 million dollars on buying these bees. And then we realize that the bees are very finicky creatures, fragile creatures. They will fly only from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. They won't fly if you give them more overtime, more. They will not fly the wind speeds about 25 kilometers an hour. They will not fly the temperatures are below 15 degrees centigrade. And we have these mysterious illnesses across the globe. Disimulating bee colonies and bee populations. We have lost 50 percent of the world wildlife population since the 1970s. So we have dramatically exceeded the precautionary boundary. The third and we signed the biodiversity convention in 2010. 195 countries around the world committed to preserving biodiversity. We have to achieve those targets by 2020. We are in 2018 today. We have not even achieved a third of those targets that we all committed to achieve. So that is a problem there. The third boundary condition that we have breached is the biogeochemical loading, the nitrogen and phosphorus loading because of intensive form of agriculture. So China today applies about 430 kilograms of fertilizer per hectare. It's the highest per hectare application of fertilizer in the world. Germany, which is the most intensive user of fertilizer in Europe, applies about 138 kilograms in contrast and the US is about 109 kilograms. So China is applying three and a half times more fertilizer than the rest of the world to pursue its goal of being self-sufficient in food production, defined as producing 95 percent of the food they consume. Then according to the WHO, 80 to 90 percent of all Chinese surface water lakes, rivers and underground aquifers are contaminated in terms of the biological oxygen demand. Can China afford to produce more food with that kind of intensity? We know that in rice farming, there is methane emissions, but the toxicity of methane emissions is 34.5 percent. The toxicity of methane emissions is 34 times more toxic than carbon dioxide emissions. But nitrous oxide leaching and emissions because of fertilizer application is 290 times more harmful than carbon dioxide emissions. We cannot continue to produce more food with more and more input intensiveness. We have to reimagine global agriculture. According to the scientists, we cannot apply more than 6.2 million tons of phosphatic fertilizers into the soil as each year. Again, the 6.2 million tons we are currently applying 50 million tons in the divisive. According to the scientists, we cannot apply more than 62 million tons of nitrogenous fertilizers into the soil as each year. Again, the 62 million tons we are currently applying 170 million tons and it is good. The fourth boundary, planetary boundary that we have reached is land use change. According to the earth scientists, you need to keep at least 75 percent of your biomes intact, but we are now cutting down more forest to produce more food. And again, that 75 percent biome intactness standard of boundary, we are at 60 percent and falling fast. So that's the fourth boundary we have reached. There are five other planetary boundaries that the scientists have determined, which we have not yet reached, but we are accelerating and hurtling towards those boundaries. One of which is water and fresh water withdrawals. We have not reached the boundaries that the scientists have set for us, but we are already consuming about 4.9 trillion cubic meters of water on an annual basis. 71 percent of the water goes to agriculture. Rice consumes 2,500 liters of water to produce one kilogram of rice. It's very, very water intensive. We need about 7 trillion cubic meters of water to support 8.3 billion population. By 2030, where will we go for this water? If we can fight a war over oil, how much more would we fight wars over food and water? Each of you sitting in this room in Singapore, we consume 3,600 calories of food per capita here. That roughly means you consume a lot of water. It's not the one or two liters of water that you drink, or the 55 liters of water that you and says you need for your household chores and purposes, your bathing and brushing and shaving. But for every calorie of food that you consume, we need a liter of water to produce the food. We said to produce a kg of rice, we need 2,500 liters of water. To produce a kg of poultry meat, we need about 4,000 liters of water to 6,000 liters of water. To produce a kg of pork meat, we need 10,000 liters of water. And to produce a kg of beef meat, we need 17,000 liters of water.  So water is another planetary boundary which we're hurtling towards reaching and reaching the boundary. The fifth is ocean acidification. We have again not reached the boundary, but the rate at which ocean acidification is occurring now is that the fastest pace in the last 65 million years. It's in terms of the calcium carbonate concentrations in the oceans. And while we're not reached it because of aerosol loading and all the energy trapped in the oceans, we are fast growing towards the boundary. The sixth boundary is really emission of pollutants, what they call novel entities. There is no scientific boundary that they have determined because the number of pollutants that industry emits is so different and very, very, that it is difficult to find an aggregate measure. So there is no measure for it, but pollution is increasing by the day. The next boundary condition is aerosol loading, the pumping of nitrates and sulfates and other particles suspended in the air because of more fleet population on the road and everything else. So today the US has about 800 cars per thousand population. China has just 55 cars per thousand people. India has just 16 cars per thousand people. Europe average is about 600 cars per thousand people. Imagine if China goes from 55 to 400 cars per thousand people. Or India goes from 16 to 100 cars per thousand people. For every car on the road, 0.070 hectares of land is lost in terms of building the garages and parking spaces to park those cars, the roads for those cars to run on. So you will have a lot of airable land being taken up and sucked up for having more urbanization and more cars on the road as an example. And all that creates aerosol loading. One of the reasons why China and India signed the Paris Accord, which is a miracle in itself, is that China and India understood while it was unfair for the West because US today consumes 300 gigajoules of energy per capita. One gigajoule requires one labor 365 days of the year. If he works, he generates one gigajoule of energy. So US's per capita consumption of energy is 300 gigajoules, which means to support every man in the US that 300 people supporting him in terms of the output that they produce. Europe has the same quality of life as the US but does it at an energy intensity per capita of 150 gigajoules. And Japan does it at 125 gigajoules. And all of the developing countries is a fraction of that. So they understand the unfairness of the rich developed countries running around and saying, don't need more meat because if you do that and follow our form and path of development, don't have same number of cars or big gas guzzling cars like we did, you become more responsible because if 2.7 billion people in India and China combine together, try and achieve what we in the West have achieved in terms of standard of life and quality of life, it'll destroy the planet. So you don't do it. But although they knew that it was unfair, they did it because in many parts of India you can hardly breathe. In Delhi, in many parts of the year, you can hardly breathe. In Beijing, you can't breathe in many parts of the year. So people are willing to go without food and water for some time, but if they're going to be suffocating, you're going to have a revolution on your hands. So emerging markets realize that it is a common good and that's the tragedy of the commons. All of us have to collectively pool our efforts, resources, capabilities to come together to try and solve for this intractable problem. There is one of the nine planetary boundaries which gives me optimism and confidence that although everything that I've given you frightens most of you in this room, you should be frightened. This year in Europe, summer, we had temperatures of 41-42 degrees centigrade. No scientist predicted that. We had fires and droughts in multiple European countries. We had 100 deaths in Greece in the summer of 2018. So there's no more about flying wolves. All of us this year have seen the wolves directly ourselves. Right? And we have to really act, particularly if the assumptions and predictions and the hypothesis that we had that at two degrees centigrade global warming, we will be safe. Firstly, I don't believe there's a chance in hell that we will achieve two degrees centigrade global warming and we'll keep within it because there are no sanctions if you don't achieve your intended contributions. So the three miracles that occurred this year, the Biodiversity Convention in 2010, 196 countries supporting it, almost 200 countries supporting the EU and sustainable development goals, which showed the kind of future that we want to build for all ourselves and our children. That was in 2015, it is a finite target of meeting those goals by 2030, 17 goals and 169 targets. The SSD and the solutions, sustainable solutions, development network of UN did a three-year study 2015-2018. What have we achieved against the commitments we made on the UN SDGs? We are trailing way behind where we should be in terms of milestones in 2018 compared to what we had set out to do. And the Paris Accord, we are nowhere near implementing any of the things that we said we will implement. But even if you implemented it, we are not going to prevent this new studies that are coming out, showing that we have never seen a two degrees warm global warming ever and therefore now the studies and the science shows that if you reach that, it could have catastrophic effects. Business as usual, if you continue with the energy intensity use that we have today, we are anyway going to destroy this plan because temperatures will rise 4 to 5 degrees centigrade and will have dramatic consequences for global food and agricultural production systems. That is on the supply side and the planetary boundary. On the demand side, the demand is growing. We are adding 75 million people to the world population each year, so we have more modes to feed. It's not a very difficult problem. We have tackled that quite admirably well in the past through science and technology and productivity improvements coming to RA. But they are growing now from a larger base. It took all of mankind to get to 1 billion population in 1800. Then in the next 130 years, we doubled it to 2 billion. In 1930, we had 2 billion. And then it took us 33 years to add the third billion. In 1963, we had 3 billion. Then it took 15, 14, 13 and 12 years to add the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh billion people on the planet. So growing at 1 percent, 0.9 percent population growth rates on that kind of a base, means 75 million people being added to the world every year and more modes to feed. The second part of the demand side of the equation is that we are consuming more calories per capita and that is because of progress and growth, economic growth. So as a rough rule of thumb, low income countries consume 2,600 calories of food per capita, middle income countries 3,000 and high income countries 3,600. So the difference between a middle income or a low income and high income country food capita per capita consumption is about 27 to 30 percent growth. That is because you have limited stomach space, just because you're richer and wealthier, you can't eat so much more. But that has a multiplied impact on the demand of food and feed raw materials. The third is the revolution in urbanization driving demand. We know that China is now 51 percent urbanized. India has reached a 30 percent urbanization rate. The revolution in urbanization has caused many developing emerging market countries. And as a result, we know that urban populations consume 2.5 times more meat than the rural population per capita. Three times more dairy products like milk than the rural population per capita. And about three and a half times more eggs per capita than the rural population. So as the urbanized, the food demand is also growing. The fourth demand side driver is the transition in dietary habits from carbohydrate, cereal-based diet to fat and protein-based diet. So China was consuming 15 kgs of meat per capita in the 1980s, mid-80s. From 15 kgs, they're now gone to 55 kgs. The Western world consumes 120 kgs of meat per capita. And we said Chinese will never consume as much meat as the Westerners do. But Hong Kong and Taiwan, greater parts of China today consume 100 kilograms of meat per capita already. So it's all about economics. If you can afford it, you want to have more proteins, fats, and perceive higher quality food. And there is a multiplier impact when that happens. To produce 1 kg of poultry meat, we need 2 kgs of feed grains to produce it. To produce 1 kg of pork meat, we need 4 kgs of feed grains. And to produce 1 kg of beef meat, we need 8 kgs of feed grains to produce 1 kg of beef. And as a result of all of this was not enough, we went and shot ourselves in the feet by diverting more food and feed raw materials to the 4th F fuel production. So 55% of the US sugarcane crop went into ethanol production last year. 40% of the US corn crop went into ethanol production. About 14% of all the world's oil seed production went into biodiesel manufacture. And that has taken and competed for food and feed and fiber production in terms of the 4th F coming into play, which is agricultural products being diverted to fuel production. So how do we reimagine global agriculture? How do we produce more food, feed, fiber with less resources, with less water intensity, with less greenhouse gas emissions, with less waste emissions? How many of you in this room representing the private sector, representing farmers and producers? No, your carbon footprint for what you produce. Or no, your water footprint for what you produce.  And are you following pathways and programs and actions to reduce the intensity of this? I'll give you a very quick few examples of what we do in OLAM. We have now measured and footprinted our carbon footprint or water footprint, our waste footprint. For most of the commodities that we supply. And we have given out public hard targets of reducing the resource intensity for producing and delivering these various agricultural commodities publicly. And on an annual basis, we have been reporting through the CDP system and also the GRI system since 2013, where and how we have performed against those public targets. So in our onion growing and dehydration operations in California, where we have multiple manufacturing facilities, where we take these onions, grow these onions and take these onions for dehydration. We have over a 10 year period, bread and onion variety, which has improved the solid content in the onion from something like 12, 12.5% when we started 10 years ago to now 26.5%. As a result, we have saved 65 million cubic meters of water. Reduce the land and the cultivation of onions by about 7,400 hectares and realize cost savings of roughly 100 million dollars over the 10 year period. In our almond orchards and plantations in Australia, California, we now put IoT sensors on those trees, dendro meters. Because when the tree, the almond tree has got moisture stress and shrink in diameter, when it's got sufficient moisture, it'll expand in diameter. But these movements are tiny and infinitesimal, not visible to the naked eye. But these IoT sensors can pick these movements and then trigger our drip irrigation system and target the irrigation to the plant that require the water for the precise duration and quantum of water they require. And as a result, we have been able to improve water usage efficiencies between 20 and 25% as a result of that. So how do we try and produce more food with less water? Similarly, the scientists say that the rate at which we till our land and the overtilling of land, we lose a lot of the topsoil. We lost a substantial part of the very rich, nutritive topsoil in the intensive way that we till. So moving towards zero till or low till methods of farming to preserve the topsoil, soil health is a hugely important factor. So how do you do that? So at OLAM, we have now said that our core purpose, the reason why we come to work every day, the cost that we have, the problem that we are trying to solve as a company, is how do we produce more food with less resources? So our purpose is to reimagine global agriculture. And within that, we want to achieve three outcomes. The first outcome that we want to achieve is make sure that farmers are prosperous. The farming ecosystem, we built prosperous farmers and prosperous farming systems. We saw that the smallholder farmer is very, very vulnerable to climate change impacts. We saw that the smallholder farmer is barely able to produce food to eat himself. We saw many of the smallholder farmers are poor. We have seen enrollments in agricultural colleges dip in emerging market economies. The average age of the farmer in an emerging market economy is 63 years old. Amongst the oldest is the perfect. Because farming is seen as a drudgery, not very viable, not very attractive. So we have, in order to achieve this outcome, we are focusing on two material areas of focus illness. We want to provide safe and decent work and we want to provide economic opportunity to the farmers. And if we achieve those two material areas, if you realize those two material areas, we will impact many SDGs. SDG number one of reducing poverty or no poverty. SDG number two of reducing hunger or going towards zero hunger. SDG number eight of providing jobs in decent economic growth. The employer said 76,000 people and so those are the two material areas that we are focused on. The second outcome that we want to achieve in our purpose is to build thriving rural communities. And we have three focus areas of material areas there. The first is education and skills. The second is health and nutrition. And the third is inclusion and diversity. And again, to achieve and if we achieve these three material areas of focus areas, we look at the SDGs that will impact the sustainable development goals that will impact. So if you have education and skills, then it will impact goal number four, which is providing quality education. Goal number three is health and well-being. So the health and nutrition programs that we run will impact that UN SDG. And it will impact no hunger and no poverty as well. And then we have five material or focus areas to achieve the final outcome in reimagining global agriculture, which is regenerating the living world. And the five are climate action. The second one there is health and ecosystems. The third one is healthy soils. The fourth one is water. And the fifth one is reducing waste for waste. Now, if you achieve those, say for example, reducing food waste, we will impact SDG goal number two, 12, which is responsible production and consumption. And SDG goal number 12 target 12.3 is about managing food waste or reducing food waste. So for each of the material areas, we map the UN SDGs that is going to impact. And then we have programs and plans that we implement in those material areas and focus areas to achieve those UN SDGs. All of this together is what we mean by reimagining global agriculture. The global food and agriculture system is broken. OLAM cannot on its own transform that. But we can change this world collectively with everybody pulling together producers and farmers, supply chain managers and traders, brand owners, retailers, scientists, policy makers, NGOs, government, all coming together. I believe we can only change this world and this situation if five things happen concurrently. Firstly, we all change at an individual level. We have to be the chain that we want to see in others. So if you believe carbon is precious and we should not pollute water as precious, what are we doing in our individual lives to be the chain that we want to see in others? So do we brush our teeth, for example, with our taps running? Do we shave on a daily basis with our taps running? The water is precious. We won't do that. If you realize that we won't do that. If you do not change individually, nothing else is going to change. Secondly, our companies have to change. Our companies have to reduce our resource intensity, our carbon footprint, our water footprint, our basement to produce what we're producing and delivering to our customers. Thirdly, the sector has to change. The whole global agriculture sector in this example has to change. Because one company on its own cannot really change. But we are a very competitive industry. We hate each other's guts. We'll never come together on anything. We don't like each other. We might come to these grand meetings and 3,000 of us might interact, but when you go out of this room, we go out of the great place. We will not be able to change the world unless we can find sectoral pathways in having sustainable agriculture. And fourth, NGOs, civil society and private sector have to work together. NGOs and civil society see private sector as suspicion. Private sector sees civil society and NGOs as suspicion. We have to come together and work together. Multilateral agencies have to work with private sector. And private sector has to work with multilateral agencies. And finally, government and policy makers have to come to the party. We have to make it mandatory that people have to disclose their footprints, measure their footprints, report their footprints, externally get their footprints verified. And hold them and their feet to the fire to make sure that they're meeting their commitments on reducing their resource intensity. Countries have to have a carbon tax. We have to advocate for a carbon tax. Anything that is free in this world, we will use in discriminatory. If water is free, electricity is free, we will use it in discriminatory. Carbon is free, we will pollute in discriminatory. Which brings me to the last element of my talk very quickly. And that's about rice. Hugely important problem. 770 million tons of paddy is expected to be produced in 2018. 90% of that is going to be produced in Asia. It is going to support the diets of about 3.7 billion, 50% of the world's population, consumers. It provides most of the energy in the emerging markets, transition economies, particularly amongst the rural poor. The largest source of energy is from rice. It supports 150 small holder farming households. And if you assume each household has about 5 to 6 people, that's 750 to 900 million people, dependent on rice production systems. But at the same time, it is the world's most polluting crop because of methane emissions. And because of nitrogen oxide emissions. So in 2014, the study that I saw, rice accounted for 82 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions, 84 billion tons of methane emissions. In Thailand, for example, the agricultural sector, the second most emitting sector amongst all the industrial sectors in Thailand. And 55% of the emissions in the agricultural sector in Thailand, which is the second largest contributor to emissions in Thailand, comes from rice cultivation, methane emissions. But nobody has really measured the nitrogen oxide emissions, which as I said is 290 times more toxic than even methane emissions, which is 34 times more toxic than just carbon dioxide emissions. Rice is a very high water intensity crop. 2500 liters of water to grow a kilogram of rice. We have to find ways of maximizing crop per drop of water. The rice has had the lowest productivity increases over the last 10, 15 years compared to corn wheat and soybean. It has lagged all of us. Rice is amongst the most significant range of productivity gaps between the low-producing countries and the high-producing countries. So immense promise and potential of producing more within the same land area with lower resource intensity. And that is why it's very important to support programs that is trying to solve for this big problem. One of the programs we are very proud to be part of and support, and which is a two multi-stakeholder program, is the Sustainable Rice Program Standard. This was a program which was initiated by EDE, by UN Environmental Program, by FAO, by GIZ and many other partners, including a lot of private sector partners. There are now 80 companies, organizations, institutions part of the program and 50% of the support from this program is now coming from the private sector. This is a great example for me of private, public, plural society partnerships to practically tackle a problem that is huge. So 2011 to 2015, they were focusing on developing the science-based targets. They were focusing on developing the performance indicators. And then 2015 to 2017, they started rolling this out in pilots across seven or eight countries. And then they got down and got deeper in different countries to get more traction. Early results are, yield improvements are between 10 and 20% in some countries like Nigeria, where we have applied some of these practices. The yield improvement is significantly more, 70% because of very low base of productivity then. Water usage efficiencies have improved 25%. Greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced by about 50%. And these are still early days as the program is being fine-tuned and applied and expanded. But competitors, all our competitors are in that program. And it is extremely encouraging for me to see that kind of cooperation. We need to extend that across the board, across many countries. Public sector is very good at policy making. But I know I'm going to be offending many people in this room, but quite hopeless in execution. Private sector is very good at execution, but doesn't think far or long term. If you're going to continue to operate in our silos to tackle such an intractable problem, we are failing our success of generations. Some of us in this room are blessed with environmental intelligence. According to multiple intelligence theory, there are eight intelligences that a person can have. And God in His infinite wisdom has given each of us only one or two. When I go into these kinds of conferences, I'm addressing a group of people who are converted, who believe in sustainability. And they always look at people outside and say, you guys don't get it. You get it because you have been blessed and born with the environmental intelligence. I have no environmental intelligence. 14 years ago, I was blissfully unaware of what all this means. My road to Damascus moment was through the eyes of my children. Fortunately for me, they took after the mother. The mother has environmental intelligence. And they told me your supply chain ecosystem has 4.7 million farmers. You operate in 70 countries. You have 2.47 million hectares of land under management. You have so much influence. But what is the point of all of this overwhelming effort? If you're not going to leave the world, a better place for all of us. Musical intelligence is one of the eight intelligences. I have no musical intelligence, but I can be moved to tears by good music. So all of us who do not have environmental intelligence, we can improve our sensibility on our environmental intelligence. But the time for action is now. The time for partnerships to make this difference is now. And I welcome and urge all of you to join each of us in this journey. Thank you.


This study found that quality of life outcomes are generally similar for children who receive either liver transplant or liver resection for hepatoblastoma. However, patients who had a liver resection reported higher levels of procedural anxiety than those who had a liver transplant. This article was authored by Zichenfaruki, Michael Johnston, Emily Shepers, and others.