Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Daily we are deluged with gloom about how we are overwhelming the Earth’s ability to sustain and support our growing numbers. Increasing population is again being hailed as the catastrophe of the century. In addition, floods and droughts are said to be leading to widespread crop loss. The erosion of topsoil is claimed to be affecting production. It is said that we are overdrawing our resources, with more people going hungry. Paul Ehrlich and the late Stephen Schneider assure us that we are way past the tipping point, that widespread starvation is unavoidable.
Is this true? Is increasing hunger inevitable for our future? Are we really going downhill? Are climate changes (natural or anthropogenic) making things worse for the poorest of the poor? Are we running out of food? Is this what we have to face?
Figure 1. The apocalyptic future envisioned by climate alarmists. Image Source
Fortunately, we have real data regarding this question. The marvelous online resource, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) statistics database called FAOSTAT, has data on the amount of food that people have to eat.
Per capita (average per person) food consumption is a good measure of the welfare of a group of people because it is a broad-based indicator. Some kinds of measurements can be greatly skewed by a few outliers. Per capita wealth is an example. Since one person can be a million times wealthier than another person, per capita wealth can be distorted by a few wealthy individuals.
But no one can eat a million breakfasts per day. If the per capita food consumption goes up, it must perforce represent a broad-based change in the food consumption of a majority of the population. This makes it a good measure for our purposes.
The FAOSTAT database gives values for total food consumption in calories per day, as well as for protein and fat consumption in grams per day. (Fat in excess is justly maligned in the Western diet, but it is a vital component of a balanced diet, and an important dietary indicator.) Here is the change over the last fifty years:
Figure 2. Consumption of calories, protein, and fat as a global average (thin lines), and for the “LDCs”, the Least Developed Countries (thick lines) . See Appendix 1 for a list of LDCs.
To me, that simple chart represents an amazing accomplishment. What makes it amazing is that from 1960 to 2000, the world population doubled. It went from three billion to six billion. Simply to stay even, we needed to double production of all foodstuffs. We did that, we doubled global production, and more. The population in the LDCs grew even faster, it has more than tripled since 1961. But their food consumption stayed at least even until the early 1990s. And since then, food consumption has improved across the board for the LDCs.
Here’s the bad news for the doomsayers. At this moment in history, humans are better fed than at any time in the past. Ever. The rich are better fed. The middle class is better fed. The poor, and even the poorest of the poor are better fed than ever in history.
Yes, there’s still a heap of work left to do. Yes, there remain lots of real issues out there.
But while we are fighting the good fight, let’s remember that we are better fed than we have ever been, and take credit for an amazing feat. We have doubled the population and more, and yet we are better fed than ever. And in the process, we have proven, once and for all, that Malthus, Ehrlich, and their ilk were and are wrong. A larger population doesn’t necessarily mean less to eat.
Of course despite being proven wrong for the nth time, it won’t be the last we hear of the ineluctable Señor Malthus. He’s like your basic horror film villain, incapable of being killed even with a stake through the heart at a crossroads at midnight … or the last we hear of Paul Ehrlich, for that matter. He’s never been right yet, so why should he snap his unbeaten string?
APPENDIX 1: Least Developed Countries
Africa (33 countries)
Angola
Benin
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Central African Republic
Chad
Comoros
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Djibouti
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gambia
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Lesotho
Liberia
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Mozambique
Niger
Rwanda
São Tomé and Príncipe
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sudan
Togo
Tanzania
Uganda
Zambia
Eurasia (10 countries)
Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Bhutan
Cambodia
East Timor
Laos
Maldives
Myanmar
Nepal
Yemen
Americas (1 country)
Haiti
Oceania (5 countries)
Kiribati
Samoa
Solomon Islands
Tuvalu
Vanuatu
Sponsored IT training links:
Pass your RH302 certification exam on first try using up to date 70-270 dumps and 646-985 practice exam .
Gail Combs says:
September 10, 2010 at 10:49 am
So lobby your politicians and spread the word. Mini and micro reactors are ready to go NOW if the blasted politicians and eco-whiners would just get out of the way.
———-
I’m doing exactly that. I belong to an energy policy advisory council, doing my best to promote realistic methods of energy production. But the current Liberal government in Ontario is pushing this Green Energy Act in which wind turbines and solar panels are prouting like weeds with huge goverment subsidies which is driving the cost of power in this province to unaffordable levels. We see winter monthly bills of $600 or more because of these ‘sustainable’ resources of power. Wind in Ontario is pathetic at best. 50% of the time they produce less than 18% name plate. Some wind farms produce less than 9% name plate half the time.
Richard Wakefield,
“Free trade and innovation will not put oil in the ground. Once flow rates drop, once ERoEI gets closer to 4:1”
And when, in your opinion, is ERoEI likely to get to 4:1?
LOL. The vast majority of people has absolutely no clue about what’s coming or what the real situation is. Of the minority that have heard something, the majority are in total denial about it. Even among the so called environmentalists adequate awareness of the ecological overshoot of humanity is extremely rare – there are people concerned about such and such species going extinct, people concerned about deforestation, people concerned about AGW, and so on, but the number of people who have connected all the dots, and by all the dots I mean the connection between the multiple crises we’re facing (peak oil and peak everything, oceans, soils, water, climate, etc.) on one side and human population, human biobehavioral characteristics, current socioeconomical structure, religious beliefs, etc. on the others, is very very small, probably not more than tens of thousands worldwide, if that.
But you can deny their existence!
You probably also want to know the exact time down to a second…
You can easily figure it our on your own whatever technology you pick as your choice. If it’s thorium it is a minimum 20 years of intense R&D before we can expect actual working reactors, and that’s if the serious technological challenges that exist today are successfully solved. Some very informative articles were already posted in this thread, I take it that you haven’t read it, something that can hardly surprise me. The same goes for fusion, which is at all practically possible is at least 40-50 years away. Oil production will be down 10million barrels a day in 2020 and 30 million in 2030 compared to now, we will have added a billion in each of those decades.
Metaphors such as overshoot are meaningless.
The fact remains . . . here we are , and fed well by and large.
Your panicked concern that stuff will run out is silly in the extreme. Is it that you think it is essential to defer entropy and if we stop burning stuff that will do the trick?
Why do you think we are much less resourceful than our ancestors? Why do you assume we are not part of the natural order of Earth? Do you think we are aliens and so are unable to make the Earth our home?
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 9, 2010 at 8:34 pm
Since everyone has always used non-renewable resources, by your definition we have all been in overshoot since the beginning of the Stone Age. Of what possible use is such a concept? It is so broad as to be useless, but it sure sounds impressive.
“Overshoot” is as broad a concept as “dead”. Is death a useless concept?
The follow-up questions are: “When. ” And “Is it going to be me.” Some “overshoots” are not important – to me at least – (It is likely we have reached peak helium for example) and some are.
Why not just say something like “at present usage, mining, and recovery rates we’ll run out of unobtanium in 2050″? That actually has meaning.
The more appropriate question will be “As the current price of unobtanium goes up, I will run out of money to buy both it and food in 2050”.
Saying we are in overshoot has no meaning. Since it applies to everyone all the time you might as well say “we are alive”. It is true, but meaningless.
The concepts of overshoot are focussed down to various ideas such as “carrying capacity overshoot”. Some are qualified down even more than that. Stripping the qualifiers off that is like stripping CAGW off CAGW and calling it climate change. Yes it’s meaningless. It needs to be focussed down as to what is running out, what it means to whoever is supposed to be bothered about it, and when it will become a problem.
Any given overshoot doesn’t affect everyone and doesn’t become a problem for everyone at the same time. When the aquifers in Northern Mexico/Southern California exhaust and slow to a trickle – it was still be lush and green where I live.
GM,
“Even among the so called environmentalists adequate awareness of the ecological overshoot of humanity is extremely rare”
I like that: Greenpeace, NRDC and Prince Charles are accused of being over complacent.
“Oil production will be down [by] 10million barrels a day in 2020 and 30 million in 2030 compared to now.”
And you know this to be true because. . . ?
Richard Wakefield says:
September 9, 2010 at 7:12 pm
“Coal is a fossil fuel – it is produced in the mantle.”
No, it is produced from once dence swamp land that has been burried, mostly vegitative in origin.
“If you heat coal you can get oil from it, as the Germans proved during WWII.”
It’s not that simple. One of the major additives to coal to make oil is hydrogen, to add to the ends of the carbon chains. Coal to oil is a net negative ERoEI.
“Oil is not a fossil fuel, because there is something in the mantle preventing the heat from converting the coal there to oil.”
Oil is not from coal. It’s from marine organisms, completely different origin than coal. The mantle is as much as 75km down. The deepest oil field, Tupi, is only 7km.
“Have I got that right?”
You would have if you had done some searching on the net.
Sorry, I should have mentioned I was being sarcastic.
Keith Battye says:
September 10, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Metaphors such as overshoot are meaningless.
The fact remains . . . here we are , and fed well by and large.
Your panicked concern that stuff will run out is silly in the extreme. Is it that you think it is essential to defer entropy and if we stop burning stuff that will do the trick?
Actually I think you’ll find that, by and large, of all the people who have put forward the idea that there is a very definite limit on carrying capacity, no one has actually made any suggestions about what should be done about it. The only suggestion has been that we *recognise* there is a very definite limit on carrying capacity.
Those that claim there is no limit on carrying capacity however, have suggested various things that *will* be done about it. Such as thorium etc.
Why do you think we are much less resourceful than our ancestors?
Well resourceful in this context has two meanings. We are less resourceful than our ancestors because they have used up resources, and so therefore we have less. Perhaps you meant the other meaning? 😉
Why do you assume we are not part of the natural order of Earth?
We are. That’s why those that say we will run short on resources and crimp our population just like every other animal (and indeed plant) on this Earth.
Do you think we are aliens and so are unable to make the Earth our home?
Well there’s an interesting concept – try living out of your cupboards for a while and see how long you can last without external supplies coming in.
It should be forever – it is your home after all.
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 9, 2010 at 7:16 pm
From your description of guano, it sounds like you are defining “overshoot” as using a renewable resource faster than it is being produced. Which makes sense, and is definitely possible.
Not just renewable resources. Any resource. If you consider the replenishment rate of a resource to be R – how does it affect your calculations if R is positive, zero or negative?
The only time it makes a difference is it R is greater than the rate you’re using it. At which point it is effectively infinite.
Every other value, it is going to run at. When not only depends on R, but also demand and stocks.
Nah, doesn’t work like that. The world is a big place. The resource won’t suddenly “run out”. It will become more and more expensive.
Spoken like a true first-worlder. When a resource becomes more expensive than you can afford – it has run out for you. Those food riots a couple of years back weren’t people over-complaining about a dollar extra for tacos. They were poor people with very limited money – for them, food had effectively run out. Dying is usually the knee-jerk reaction to that event.
As it does, alternatives will become more and more cost effective. In addition, advances in technology often allow replacements that were undreamed of prior to the advance. Anyone in 1950 estimating copper usage to wire up the world-wide web would have gotten an answer in megatonnes …
Which would have turned out to be true. Every Cat 5/6 etc cable in the world has copper in it. Gigatons is probably closer to the mark.
who would have guessed that we would be able to replace much of that copper with, of all things, glass? And now much of it is carried by microwave …
Not much is carried by microwave. Latency is a bit horrendous on it for satellite use. Submarine fibreoptic cables still have a load of copper in them to power the repeaters.
Richard Wakefield says:
September 10, 2010 at 10:52 am
…It’s very likely this has already started in the US and they will never recover from this recession. We will only know that in retrospect some 10 years from now.
Right now the US, and Canada for that matter, can’t even find the funds to repair aging infrastructure, inspite of record high taxes….
____________________________________________
Your suggestion about the USA and Canada is dependent on the people not waking up and getting rid of the leaches attached to their jugulars.
If you look more closely at those record high taxes and their cause, you will find 100% of the taxes in the USA go to the Federal Reserve (Central Bankers) That taxpayer wealth is to pay interest on the nonexistent money (fairy dust) the bankers lent the government. Money that was created at the time it was lent. This is according the January 12, 1984 Report to President Reagan http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/gracecom.htm
Further investigation shows the fractional reserve system implemented by central bankers in most countries has been siphoning off the countries wealth. If people ever wake up and understand they spend 3 or more hours a day slaving for a rich banker in exchange for nothing you might just see a major change, but first they have to figure that out.
See: A PRIMER ON MONEY: by US House Committee on Banking and Currency
http://www.devvy.com/pdf/2006-October/Patman_Primer_on_Money.pdf
Money Is Created by Banks: Evidence Given by Graham Towers, Governor of the Central Bank of Canada (from 1934 to 1955)
http://www.michaeljournal.org/appenE.htm
Q. But there is no question about it that banks create the medium of exchange?
Mr. Towers: That is right. That is what they are for… That is the Banking business, just in the same way that a steel plant makes steel. (p. 287)
Think I am crazy?
August 4th, 2010
http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/commonwealth_bank_aus.php
“Virg Bernero, the mayor of Lansing, Michigan, just won the Democratic nomination for governor of his state, making a state-owned Bank of Michigan a real possibility. Bernero is one of at least a dozen candidates promoting that solution to the states’ economic woes. It is an innovative idea, with little precedent in the United States. North Dakota, currently the only state owning its own bank, also happens to be the only state sporting a budget surplus, and it has the lowest unemployment rate in the country…”
This legal decision is even more interesting:
“Mr. Morgan, the bank’s president, took the stand. To everyone’s surprise, Morgan admitted that the bank routinely created money “out of thin air” for its loans, and that this was standard banking practice. “It sounds like fraud to me,” intoned Presiding Justice Martin Mahoney amid nods from the jurors. In his court memorandum, Justice Mahoney stated:
Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, . . . did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note.
The court rejected the bank’s claim for foreclosure, and the defendant kept his house.”
http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/dollar-deception.php
Return to economic soundness is possible but getting rid of the economic leeches, bankers and government bureaucrats, is the key.
From the US Constitution:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Jaye Bass says:
September 10, 2010 at 7:30 am
He is mostly arguing a tautology. Yes we all know there are finite resources. However population is set to roll over and start decreasing.
Actually GM is not arguing that it won’t. The question is rather what is going to cause this – choice or starvation. Actually, if the choice is “choice or starvation” was it a choice after all? One for the philosophers I feel…
Prices will put pressure on certain kinds of activities.
Like living? Food riots will put pressure on prices I would expect from the experience of a couple of years ago.
I think it is just as reasonable to say that we will adapt smoothly (or at least non-catastrophically) as it is to say that some sort of undefined crash will occur sometime in the future.
This may well be a 50/50 question, but having faith in people “doing the right thing” is not a commonly shared faith. Especially once the evil-doers and do-gooders get their teeth into it.
Dates and sequence of events have not been offered just possibility of dire consequences…very easy things to do, doesn’t take a whole lot of thought or creativity, etc.
It’s rather like having fallen off a tall building in the fog. You know there’s ground down there, you just don’t know when. Some people are preparing for the ground by flapping their arms, and others are not.
It’s all a matter of personal choice.
Vince Causey says:
September 10, 2010 at 12:27 pm
GM,
“Oil production will be down [by] 10million barrels a day in 2020 and 30 million in 2030 compared to now.”
And you know this to be true because. . . ?
Of the work of M King Hubbert, who demonstrated that as for an individual field, so follows the country. This is just the next level up, as follows the country, so follows the world.
Of course it won’t…what is it with you guys and strawmen? Are you part of a Wicker Man culture or something?
Let’s suppose for a moment that the situation is as dire as you make it out to be…although you have not put a time line on the proposed events. Let’s also suppose that there is a possibility to act in time. What I am proposing is that the typical response to this is that the governments have to impose some sort of “program” to solve the problem…a large dose of central planning. My opinion is that only innovation within a free floating system will produce the kind of efficiencies and new products that will alleviate the problem.
Long ago and far away, futurists of a bygone era were devastated by their calculations of how many horses would be needed for transportation in the year 2000.
They foresaw that when suddenly the horses ran out – the western world would collapse.
…mail delivery only by pigeon- until they run out…
Conestogas permanently parked in ‘trailer camps’…
Plows rusted in the middle of barren fields…
Wars conducted on foot…
children to grow up never knowing a real Ice Man or Milk Man who delivered…
princes suffering to use a palanquin instead of a carriage…
Well, the claim that the only limit to resource availability is how much one is willing to pay for it is in the end exactly the same the claim that free market will somehow put it in the ground. You can’t claim that there is no problem with resource because the market will take care of everything on one side and concede that resources are finite on the other. There is no substitute for things like water, phosphorus, and other, and most importantly, absolutely no substitute for energy/negative entropy
Eduardo Ferreyra says:
September 9, 2010 at 12:19 pm
One big problem with food supply has historically been plagues that used to destroy up to 80% of food production. A fast example was the Irish starvation in the mid 1800 when the blight affected potato crops. Today it is unthinkable another event like that due to advances in fungicides and other pesticides.
Start thinking the unthinkable.
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/02/ff_ug99_fungus/
GM says:
September 10, 2010 at 12:17 am
Say what? I agree that there is a sunlight limit, there is a limit to everything. I was asking you to give us your estimate of how large that limit is. How is asking you to show the mathematics to quantify your claim “exactly the same as denying the laws of physics exist”?
Let’s review the bidding to date.
1. You said, without any numbers to support it, that regarding food production:
2. Caught by your comment that “sun light is very limited”, I gave a back-of-the-envelope calculation of how much sunlight strikes the earth. I compared that to how much energy humans use. My conclusion was that we are far from the sunlight limit. In other words, there’s plenty of sunlight out there, enough to feed many times the current population. Food production is not limited by sunlight.
3. In response, you called me unpleasant names for having had the unmitigated gall to actually do a calculation, or because you didn’t like my calculations, or thought I’d made a mistake in my calculations, or something.
4. I said if you were unhappy with my calculations, you should definitely do your own calculations of the sunlight limit on how much food can be grown, and let us know the results. That seemed preferable to a possibly unpleasant discussion of results of the sunlight limit calculations I had done.
5. And to close out the bidding, now you say that to ask you to do a calculation is denying the basic laws of physics … yeah, that’s the ticket, asking you for calculations = denying basic physics. Riiiight …
As near as I can tell by your actions so far, you are not here to contribute anything. You are not here to ask questions. You are not here to teach anything. You are not here to learn anything.
You are here to tell us that you can’t be questioned, that would be questioning the laws of physics. You are here to cause trouble and call people names.
Unless you are willing to take a very deep breath, start over, and have a collegial discussion, I fear that I must ask you to go away. Please.
I ask you to hit the RESET button because on your current path, you are simply looking foolish. Making unsupported claims, insulting people, and saying that asking for your calculations is denying basic physics, only makes people point and laugh. Unless your goal is to continue to look like the angry, bitter village idiot, I would invite you to either step back and take a deep breath and restart the conversation in a more congenial manner, or alternately, to go and find another blog where people are in more harmony with your style.
Please.
Jaye Bass says:
September 10, 2010 at 10:13 am
Only innovation and free trade coupled with price pressures will accomplish what needs to be accomplished.
The North Sea oil field has had falling production for a number of years, such that the UK is a net importer of oil. At which price point will North Sea production increase to its former peak?
You [snip – unnecessary incivility]:
1. Assumed that sunlight is shining 24 hours a day (it is, half of the year in places where nothing grows, but not in the rest of the world)
2. Assumed that we can cover the whole surface of the planet with crops, including the 70% of it so inconveniently covered with 2 miles of salt water
3. Assumed that plant can convert sunlight into carbohydrate at a 100% efficiency
[snip]
You want some numbers, [snip – unnecessary] here are some more:
1. Maximum theoretical efficiency of photosynthesis is 11%. You can’t go higher than that.
2. The highest efficiency we know of is sugarcane in Brazil, at 7-8%
3. Most crops barely break 1%
4. Most plant do about 0.2%
The only reason sugarcane in Brazil does 7-8% is the optimal conditions you find there – it rains a lot and is very sunny. Needless to say, those conditions aren’t met in many other places in the world, it doesn’t do even a third of that in Louisiana.
It may be possible to to double yields one more, with a lot of genetic engineering, fertilizers, chemicals, etc. But this will not help us at all if when soils are being destroyed at the rate they are (any agricultural activity destroys soils, but we are doing it at a truly absurd rate), fossil fuel inputs and fertilizers will soon be in very short supply, fresh water is being pumped out aquifers many times the recharge rate, and the list goes on. I.e. a classical overshoot situation.
[snip]
[if you can’t debate in a civil way then expect the next post to get snipped in its entirity. I’ve bothered to ‘cool’ this one next time I won’t bother. Tolerance levels vary between moderators (Willis please note) jove~mod]
Richard Wakefield says:
“There are regions that are in overshoot. We send food aid to African countries. Regardless of the reason, if they cannot produce enough of their own food, they are in overshoot. Cuba, the bastion of sustainability, has to import 80% of it’s food or they will starve. They are in overshoot. “
No, they have hopeless political systems. Although politically a dirty word, re-colonialisation would solve Africa’s food worries in a stroke. Farmers equipped with modern methods and equipment would feed Africa no problems. Zimbabwe had no food issues when the White farmers ran the place.
Cuba will be able to feed itself easily the moment the Communists are gone.
“Temporate regions, like Russia, Canada, the upper US states, have to have food imported from around the world to maintain the food supply. They are in overshoot.”
You really are an idiot, aren’t you? Even though Canada is not “temperate”, it could feed itself easily. The food would be pretty boring (lots of tubers) and very expensive though. Canadians wisely prefer to buy their food more cheaply from elsewhere, giving them more variety in the process.
The idea that the US and Russia can’t feed themselves is just ridiculous. They choose to import some products rather than produce them inefficiently themselves. I really think you lack a concept of what a market system is.
Moreover, you have this idea that the whole world is farmed using the techniques of the most intensive farming seen in Europe and the US. Well most of the world is farmed quite differently. Some is farmed well – South American, Australia, China – without being intensively farmed. Cows run round on grass fields with very little fertiliser and no antibiotics or hormones. Some land is farmed very badly – Africa, India – and produces low returns. That could be changed with a power more of your “overshoot”.
What few pockets of the world that are farmed in a way that is excessively intensive are almost all animal husbandry. Many European and US dairy farms, for example. But they would double their food production if they shifted to cropping. They don’t because their industries are protected (they would be destroyed if Australian and New Zealand dairy products were admitted at their true price) and they make money behind their protective walls.
They only real exception I know is Japanese rice production, which is incredibly inefficient and wouldn’t last a moment in an open market.
[snip – calm down] I said that, imo, innovation through technological solutions, as well as cultural I suppose, are the best ways to solve long term energy problems. Otherwise, we will either have to kill a bunch of people or force billions to not produce. I see two sides regarding solution innovate out or draconian cultural manipulation…if the situation is as bad as you think.
“You really are an idiot, aren’t you? Even though Canada is not “temperate”, it could feed itself easily. The food would be pretty boring (lots of tubers) and very expensive though. Canadians wisely prefer to buy their food more cheaply from elsewhere, giving them more variety in the process.”
————
Is being insulting necessary? Isn’t this supposed to be a rational discussion? If I want to be insulted I’ll go to Desmog.
Canada can feed itself only with oil. Remove the ability to cheaply transport food and locally the major metropolises cannot be sustained on locally produced food alone. The average distance food travels to our plates here in Canada in the Winter is some 1200km.
In Canada we need at minimum 1 acre of land per person to grow a years food (9 months of which would have to be preserved food.). I’m near London Ontario, including all the people in the surrounding area just us would need an area of about 30km radius. Which overlaps nearby cities and does not include the Golden Horseshoe’s 4 million plus.
Cuba is back to private farm ownership, and they can only produce 20% of their food, the rest they import. Google it if you think I’m an idiot.
Jaye Bass says:
September 10, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Let’s suppose for a moment that the situation is as dire as you make it out to be…although you have not put a time line on the proposed events. Let’s also suppose that there is a possibility to act in time. What I am proposing is that the typical response to this is that the governments have to impose some sort of “program” to solve the problem…a large dose of central planning. My opinion is that only innovation within a free floating system will produce the kind of efficiencies and new products that will alleviate the problem.
——————–
The time line can only be known after the fact. We could be in terminal decline in oil flow output right now. The Saudi’s have about a 3mb/day excess capacity, which would be used up PDQ once the economy starts its turn around. Everyone else is producing full volume. If that is the case then we have already started on the horizonal apex of production and soon onto the down side of the slope. “soon” could be 5 years, could be ten years, could be next year. It will likely all depend on China who is now #2 in oil consumption behind the US and growing at a rate of some 10% per year . So in seven more years their consumption could be double today’s. They are building cars faster than any other country, 95% of which are domestically bought. New car sales is more than 30% per year.
There was an Oil Drum article that looked at the drop rate of ERoEI since the 1960s from all oil fields. In the 60’s it was 100:1. Today it’s around 20:1. (The tar sands is 6:1). Their estimate is that ERoEI will hit break even some time between 2020 and 2030. Soon as the world hits break even over all, we have essentually run out of oil.
Of course it won’t do that evenly, but sparsely in different locations. Expect some deposits, like the tar sands, to produce negative ERoEI over all for some time before it is stopped. One plan, by a CEO of one of the companies there, want’s to build one thousand nuke plants to produce enough steam to mobalize the bitumen to flow up wells. The interviewer had to ask him twice on that number.