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 .
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.
———-
And the US is following that path in its own production, on the down side of the slope since 1970.
The book Oil 101 has some amazing facts about US oil production and its decline.
“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.”
Actually I’m amazed at the number of people who have independently connected the dots on their own. I’m often not willing to discuss peak oil with people at a gathering (one they don’t want to know about it, and two you get the same response as those here), but more often than not some topic will come up and someone will make a subtle quip about peak oil. Then the discussion can go into high gear.
BTW, last winter our Prime Minister in an Xmas interview on CTV made a quick comment about “dwindling petrolium resources”. I have it from a reliable source that he has been completely briefed on peak oil.
I’ll know for sure because next March I’ll be at an event where our current Environment Minister will be at and I’ll be able to talk with him. He has also hinted in speeches about peak oil. All I’ll need to do is watch his reaction when I mention peak oil.
Peak oil is not a problem at all. The only reason we use oil is that it is easy to carry around, has a rather high energy density – the carbon is not important, what we need is the hydrogen – and is easy to get. As the easy sources are depleted we have to develop new technologies to make harder-to-get sources viable. When this becomes too hard we will simply use algae like E. braunii to synthesize new oil.
All of this doesn’t even take into account the possibilities of nuclear fission or fusion. So, i see no problem with peak oil.
Richard Wakefield says:
September 10, 2010 at 4:00 pm
“[…]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.”
I googled it. Looks like Cuba plans to open up its agriculture a little bit to private cooperatives…
“NO SHIFT TO CAPITALISM
The provincial governments are now in the process of approving proposals that can include cooperatives and other forms of administration.
“Raul said to study what to do at the local level. It doesn’t have to be the same in Havana as here in Camaguey,” a Communist Party cadre in the province said by telephone.
”
http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-51339220100907
I don’t know where you get your news from.
Richard Wakefield says:
September 10, 2010 at 4:31 pm
“[…]I’ll know for sure because next March I’ll be at an event where our current Environment Minister will be at and I’ll be able to talk with him.”
Tell him what you know about Cuba. I’ll happily watch the consequences.
DirkH says:
September 10, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Peak oil is not a problem at all. The only reason we use oil is that it is easy to carry around, has a rather high energy density – the carbon is not important, what we need is the hydrogen – and is easy to get. As the easy sources are depleted we have to develop new technologies to make harder-to-get sources viable. When this becomes too hard we will simply use algae like E. braunii to synthesize new oil.
All of this doesn’t even take into account the possibilities of nuclear fission or fusion. So, i see no problem with peak oil.
————
You need to read up on organic chemisty. Most of the energy in oil comes from carbon to carbon bonds.
Hydrogen gas, H2, is not a fuel. We don’t mine hydrogen gas. We have to make it. It’s an energy transfer medium with a negative ERoEI. Big time loss of 80%.
“we will simply use algae like E. braunii to synthesize new oil” Not at 86million barrels per day you won’t.
“I don’t know where you get your news from.”
http://www.google.ca/search?q=cuba+import+80%25+food&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GBSA_en
Oh, and: http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/09/fidel-castro-socialism-doesnt-work.html
@richard Wakefield :
Well, Richard, do you want to play games? you give me a link to a google search, fine, now, which ARTICLE is it where you read that Cuba runs private farms now? You said: “Cuba is back to private farm ownership”. WHERE do you have that from?
And for the algae:
““we will simply use algae like E. braunii to synthesize new oil” Not at 86million barrels per day you won’t.”
Yes i will. And you know how? I’m telling you. I’ll develop a plant that produces 1 barrel a day.
And then i’ll build it 86 million times.
http://www.wfp.org/countries/cuba
world food program, confirms 80% import rate
why this is so relevant here is what happened to Cuba post USSR collapse and Cuba is a good example to see what happens when the energy supply gets abruptly cut off
they have made some huge strides given the circumstances and these things take a long time to adapt to
Negative population growth is preordained. We’re already past the point of no return. For a while there was some hope that the US would buck the trend but now with the Great Recession all hope is lost. Next will come a war unlike any previously. Billions will die. And for the coup de grace, Mother Nature is going to send the ultimate curve ball, at a minimum a Little Ice Age if not the Big Kahuna. A bedraggled remnant of 24th Century cave men will barely number 50 million world wide. And none of this will be a result of “overshoot.”
Why? Because other than the regional Dark Age in Europe for a few hundred years and the Black Plague for a few hundred, world wide population and economic growth proceeded (slowly at first, faster from 1000 to 2000 AD) for nearly 10K years.
The Holocene has been a boon to both population growth and economic growth. Past tense. Turn out the lights. The party’s over.
Andrew W says:
September 10, 2010 at 12:12 am
Andrew, thanks for the comment. I would modify your statement to say that any resource is finite given a specified level of technology,
Let us imagine we have a mine. It contains an ore body. Suppose it is mined until that ore body is entirely mined out, and nothing remains. Clearly it is a finite resource, we have used it up, we can quantify the size of the resource, let’s say it was a thousand tonnes of ore. We know how many tonnes were there, because we removed and used all of them.
Let us further suppose that the mine was exhausted and played out in Roman times. There it sat, mined out, for a couple of thousand years. Then a few decades ago, new technology allowed people to go back in and remove another five hundred tonnes of ore, 50% more ore from the exact same mine.
Now, if the mine is a finite resource, the question then is, how large was the resource? Was it the thousand tonnes the Romans removed, or the total yield of fifteen hundred tonnes? Or (as is likely) will some future technology get even more from the mine?
Yes, it is a finite resource … but solely and only given a certain level of technology.
Not at all. “Faith” implies that there is no evidence to support either side, so you just have to believe. That is hardly the situation here.
I think that improving technology will find solutions, for a very simple reason. Improving technology has always found solutions in the past, ever since some time around the invention of the atlatl and continuing up to the present. That is the point of my article, which is that we are better fed than ever in history. That has happened because improving technology found solutions to the problems.
And while an unbroken record of finding technological solutions for millennia doesn’t mean we will find solutions in the future, that certainly has to be the default position. But not based on faith as you say — it is based on the thousands of years of technological solutions to problems that have made our current lives possible. Humans are madly, fanatically, demonically, angelically ingenious. Whenever we have come up against limits, we have used our imagination and ingenuity to overcome them. And the more and the harder we are pressed, the more ingenious we become. We respond to crises by upping our game.
I see no reason to assume that, having functioned very successfully over many millennia, solving problem after problem as each arose, suddenly we would hit a problem we couldn’t solve.
Possible? Sure, anything’s possible.
But unlikely. Definitely unlikely.
GM says:
September 10, 2010 at 6:26 am
You often want to make the question whether there is some kind of ultimate, never-to-be-exceeded limit. Such a limit exists for any given level of technology, but it is only temporary. Improved technology at some future date will increase that limit.
But that’s not the question at hand. That question is whether we will be able to feed the projected population of the earth.
Now, there is general agreement that the eventual population of the earth will likely be on the order of nine billion. We have seven billion right now. So we only need about a thirty percent increase in food production to feed the expected population at the current nutrition levels.
Me, I say we can do that no problem. Heck, a quarter of the food currently produced is lost to what are called “post-harvest losses”. These are losses due to rodents and insects and fungus and mold and the like. That’s low-hanging fruit.
In addition, there’s lots of unused cropland on the planet. The problems that keep people from being fed are generally not technological. We have plenty of land and plenty of sunshine.
The problems that keep people hungry have to do with politics and tribalism and corruption and land tenure rights and legal and economic structures and greed and power, not technology.
DirkH says:
September 10, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Yes i will. And you know how? I’m telling you. I’ll develop a plant that produces 1 barrel a day.
And then i’ll build it 86 million times.
**************
The problem you run into is that it takes vast areas to collect enough sunlight, that area must either be unused at present, or you must reduce the area available for some other use.
With algae you run into the same problems you have with other biofuels, in someways more so as algae growing requires the construction of vast ponds on flat (valuable) land.
Willis, the ability of todays society to utilize ore deposits that previously weren’t economic comes down to our greater ability to utilize vast amounts of cheap energy (those vast amounts of cheap energy are also what’s allowed agricultural production to rise to levels that were previously considered not possible). If that energy supply is removed and a substitute (and the systems to utilize that substitute) isn’t in place we’re back to mining the higher grades of ore – but as you point out, they’ve already been used.
You guys snip “freaking”…well enough to say that the “we are all going to die crowd” is the most outlandish group I’ve run across on the web.
Let us further suppose that the mine was exhausted and played out in Roman times. There it sat, mined out, for a couple of thousand years. Then a few decades ago, new technology allowed people to go back in and remove another five hundred tonnes of ore, 50% more ore from the exact same mine.
———-
I think that is an unfair analogy. The romans did’n’t have 3D siesmic and radar imaging. Are you saying that in the future there will be better technology that will find what our current technology missed at ore grade levels?
You do realize that that technology has allowed us to mine and process at grades so small that tonnes of rock for a gram of metal is processed. Are you implying that in the future, grades much lower than that will be minable with better technlogy at infinitem?
Here are the facts of mining lower grade ores that technology has allowed us to do. Strip mining in huge swaths of land, clearing entire areas. Energy per tonne of ore goes up exponentially. Other resources, like water, also increases exponentially as ore grade drops.
As in all things there is no free lunch and at some point you reach a physical limit that no technology can surpass. Are we there yet? Only time will tell.
Have a look at the ore grade levels for copper over time.
Well, Richard, do you want to play games? you give me a link to a google search, fine, now, which ARTICLE is it where you read that Cuba runs private farms now? You said: “Cuba is back to private farm ownership”. WHERE do you have that from?
———-
Guess I have to do all the google searches for you.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=private+farms+cuba&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GBSA_en
Yes i will. And you know how? I’m telling you. I’ll develop a plant that produces 1 barrel a day.
And then i’ll build it 86 million times.
———
Publish your business plan on how you intend to do that and I’ll mortgage my house and invest in your company because you will make a shit load of money. You would be come the next oil barron of the world. I want in on that on the ground floor.
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 10, 2010 at 5:38 pm “I think that improving technology will find solutions, for a very simple reason. Improving technology has always found solutions in the past,”
Not always, some civilisations have collapsed, and others have dramatically retrenched when solutions weren’t found.
I see little difference between your sentiments and those of a Christian, adamant that the Christian God has protected his flock for 2000 years and so is sure to continue to do so. Also you’re again using extrapolation; what has been must be (or at least is probably) what will be.
I’m not arguing that the end of cheap oil will see a collapse, only that it’s possible and what happens will depend on factors in the near future, how we act and physics.
If you’ve got time my views draw on those of Joseph Tainter, present day observed diminishing marginal returns being a central theme.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Tainter
Interesting that someone way above in the comments alluded to this: Oil is not a fossil fuel, just ask the Russians.
“just ask the Russians.”
So I went and asked some Russians I know, they fell off their chairs in fits of laughter.
What does it mean?
Richard Wakefield,
You have returned to the ERoEI scenario several times – that when this reaches breakeven, this will mark the end of that resource.
Here’s the problem I have with that line of reasoning. Suppose for sake of argument oil is absolutely essential to civilization – we need it for transporation fuel, fertlizers and other chemicals. Say at some point we are down to the dregs – low density oil sands and scattered, tiny oil reservoirs – ERoEI has fallen below break even. To my simple mind, we would build (or would have built previously, because this would not happen overnight) nuclear reactors to power the extraction of this low grade oil. We will be putting in more energy than we get out for sure, but we wouls have obtained the oil and leveraged another energy source in order to do so.
Please tell me why I am wrong.
Z,
“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.”
Let me see if I understand. I asked how GM can be sure that oil production will decline by 10m bpd by 2020, and you reply by saying that “as for an individual field, so follows the country.” Riight.
Andrew W,
“If you’ve got time my views draw on those of Joseph Tainter, present day observed diminishing marginal returns being a central theme.”
Wiki: However, Tainter is not entirely apocalyptic: “When some new input to an economic system is brought on line, whether a technical innovation or an energy subsidy, it will often have the potential at least temporarily to raise marginal productivity” (p. 124). Thus, barring continual conquest of your neighbors (which is always subject to diminishing returns), innovation that increases productivity is – in the long run – the only way out of the dismal science dilemma of declining marginal returns. . .
Inovation that increases productivity – isn’t that what Willis is talking about?
Richard Wakefield,
I have finally gotten around to reading your oildrum link from earlier, which gives reasons why controlled fusion will never happen. Unfortunately, it addresses only the ITER project and has drawn the inevitable conclusion. As you are probably aware, there is research being done in Inertial Electric Containment (IEC) fusion, the most well know being the Polywell fusion. When addressing an audience of Google execs, Dr Bussard quipped “We know fusion works – you only have to look into the sky at night to see millions of examples – and not one of them is toroidal.”
Oildrum is quite right, toroidal will never work, but by focussing on the mainstream they have not presented the complete picture. So far, Polywell fusion is progressing and ‘Wiffleball 8’ is being built. The outcome should be clear in a few years.