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 .
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Apparently the authors has zero awareness of basic principles of ecology. You will never do better than the moment when you are in maximum overshoot just before the crash begins. And then, of course, the crash begins, but you’re so deep in overshoot that it’s too late to do anything about it.
This is your typical pipe-dream cornucopian post that is really the intellectual equivalent to the person who jumped from the 88th floor and while he was passing the 20th on his way down, said “See, I’m doing fine, nothing to worry about”
Yes, we produce enough food to feed our present population. No, we aren’t going to produce even a fraction of that when the converging effects of peak oil, gas and phosphorus, fossil aquifer depletion, topsoil loss and climate change make our present way of producing food impossible in most areas. So there is plenty to worry about.
These are often quoted numbers, the problem is that it is very unlikely that they will ever be reached. Two things are more likely to happen:
1. The die off will begin before that, around 2030.
2. As the demographic transition in the Third world is predicted solely on the assumption that the Third world will become rich and developed, it is useful to ask the question is the Third world going to stop reproducing at the current rate if it doesn’t develop. And it is 99% certain that it will not develop as the energy and resources for that simply aren’t available, which means that fertility rates aren’t going down any time soon there. Of course the die off is still 100% certain in such a case, but it may be that it will not start before 2050 and then those projections will be surpassed.
Food production at present is not only an extractive process like burning oil, it is in fact burning oil. We are essentially using soil to convert oil, gas, fertilizers and fossil fresh water into food, while destroying a lot of that soil in the process. And it is not recycled, it typically goes into the ocean
Espen says:
September 9, 2010 at 12:56 am
“Mike Haseler you’re thinking like a malthusian and missing the A and O of demography. The fact is that when a country reaches a certain level of development (and thus, of food supply and energy consumption), it reaches the “fourth phase of demographic transition” and fertility plummets. The main reason is that in such societies, women decide to make a career instead of having ever more children.”
Espen is spot on about the Demographic Transition (DT). It’s unfortunate that dummies like Paul Ehrich and John Holdren cannot grasp the concept. However the DT is not always a given. For example, without massive food aid from the US, Haiti would have been a Malthusian hell a long time ago.
There are several things that promote the Demographic Transition in a developing country:
•Urbanization
•Industrialization
•Strong property rights
•Universal public education
•Respect for the rights of women
•Rudimentary public health measures
Is population a problem? Yes and no. Other things being equal, smaller populations in the developing countries would mean higher living standards there. For example, more meat and/or dairy products on the table.
On the other hand, human population in a developing country can become a non-draconian, self-regulating system if the initial conditions for the Demographic Transition are satisfied. The catch is that even with the DT kicking in everywhere, human population levels would be displeasing to certain influential misanthropic Environmentalists. Hence the present hoo-ha.
Lucy Skywalker says: Thank you everyone here. And PS, a primer on the issues of Peak Oil both for and against, as a post here, to make the basic facts more accessible to flounderers like myself, would be nice.
I cover it to some reasonable degree in the “no shortage” postings. Some expansion in the comments. The “short form” is that most oil fields deplete in a bell curve, so by extension the whole world, if thought of as one ‘field’ ought to do the same.
The “issues” that make this view problematic are pretty straight forward.
1) Saudi is NOT developing at full possible speed, so we don’t know how much they really have. They ‘banked it’ for a long time, and they are the major player.
2) Depth. We’ve recently found oil at ‘impossible depths’. The prior theory said oil could not exist that deep, so folks didn’t drill that deep. Now that we know better, a very large number of places that ‘had no oil’ may in fact have oil, just deeper.
3) Refilling fields. There is a theory, mostly popular with the Russians, that oil is made by carbonate rocks being subducted and heated. Since we can turn carbonates into oil in the lab, this seems pretty well proven as possible. Further, most of the worlds oil fields are found near present or former subduction zones (California, Indonesia, Saudi) or collision zones between ancient plates. In the Gulf of Mexico, there is at least one ‘played out’ well that was found to be refilling from below with oil of a different isotope signature… The fact is, we don’t really know where oil comes from or how much more there is.
4) Technological advance. In the short term of 20 or 30 years, a field is a bell curve depletion. But over 50 to 60 years we develop whole new ways to raise oil. We’ve gone back to ’empty’ fields and made them produce more. At present, fields that are ’empty’ have about 1/2 their oil still in them… and technology is still advancing.
5) What is “oil” changes over time. We’re now using ‘tar sands’ that were ‘useless’ 30 years ago. There is more oil in “useless” shale right now than in the rest of the worlds reserves combined.
6) We can make oil. Companies like Rentech and Syntroleum turn trash and plants into oil. How much oil you want? We can get 50 tons / acre of wood, or about 10 x that in algae, and make it into oil.
There are more “issues” but then this would not be a short summary. I’ll just end with noting that the 200 years it took to reach this point implies 200 years before we ‘run out’… Oh, and the whole ‘EROI’ Energy Return On Investment argument is broken. It says you reach a point where it takes more than a bbl of oil to raise a bbl so you stop. The reality is that we will use nuclear electricity to raise the oil as the FORM of energy in oil is more convenient. Oh, and the whole ‘need it for chemicals and plastics’ is broken too. We can make them from trash, trees, anything with carbon in it. Even coal, that was used before we decided oil was handy. BTW, right now we use natural gas for plastics as it’s cheaper and more plentiful…
Hope that helps.
We DO have to stamp out the biofuels industry. It is a waste of energy in every way and only serves to raise the cost of food to the point where poor in the world cannot afford it. It is criminal to make food into fuel when there is not a shortage of fuel and also criminal to commandeer crop land, which could be raising food, for biofuel-specific crops.
The biofuels industry has its purpose which is stated above – to raise the cost of food and allow people to die naturally, of starvation.
[Snip]
[REPLY: Aligning / comparing AGW supporters with Radical Islamic Terrorists is NOT going to fly… (biglee57 ~ mod)]
If we turned Rhode Island into a soccer stadium, everybody in the world could be accomodated. However, there would be a bit of a traffic jam after the match if everybody left at once.
Everyone believing that there are too many people in the world, should lead by example…
Willis’s analysis of this topic is first class. Here’s my own essay on the subject.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fchangethis.com%2Fmanifesto%2Fdownload%2F71.02.RationalOptimist&rct=j&q=matt%20ridley%20change%20this%20manifesto&ei=i8iITIzKKcK4jAeYuuWQCA&usg=AFQjCNFZVoUNrVIIUyyEKzZfDFDda8KSxw&sig2=aswUol9xHTWdV4zrdLYOdA&cad=rja
The population of the planet and the land area of Ireland in m^2 are similar. Now imagine everyone standing in Ireland with the rest of the world available for housing, agriculture, energy, manufacture etc. A silly idea I know but helps to put things into perspective. BTW, last time I was in an Irish pub on a Saturday night, 1m^2 per person would have been a luxury!
(Mea Culpa for the last ‘toooooo tooooo’ near the edge)
“I Am So Tired of Malthus”
Everything you said is so true. Unfortunately, nothing we say here will change anything outside of WUWT. As illogical and wrong as their argument is about population and global resources, about anthroprogenic global warming, about ‘climate credits’, etc., they will continue to use every argument (and ‘Food’ is a good one) to win their way. This is not a polite argument about a complicated scientific theory where each side is merely trying to determine the ‘truth’.
Why do Malthusians have large families? Why don’t neo-Malthusian groups like the ‘Optimum Population Trust’ ask for proof of sterilisation before granting membership? If they lead by example, people may trust them more.
“Ralph says:
September 9, 2010 at 4:19 am
>>Ethiopia is not the dust bowl many poeple think it is. It is infact
>>VERY fertile, one problem there is traditional farm practices.
Whoa, there Patrick.
Everyone is saying we should return to traditional, sustainable farming, instead of building mono-culture mega factory farms. But that is simply not possible.
If you are campaigning for population increase, please do not let anyone campaign for Green agriculture and sustainability at the same time.”
Nice one Ralph, take my post out of context! Well, you are wrong. I did not mention sustainable farming practices but that traditional farming practices, like “waiting for the rains”, were not reliable (Hence famine). Water conservation is improving in Ethiopia because of, in part, LiveAid in the 80’s and western influences. Local farmers find it works.
As for mono-cultures, it is a BIG issue, and with bee populations under pressure, I don’t see that as sustainable. Australia’s bee population is the ONLY bee population on earth right now that is not infested with the viroa bee mite. In fact we export bee colonies to other contries, with vast mono-culture systems, to assist in fertilisation. They are “sacraficial” bees as they become infested with the mite at the local site.
This planet can sustain many many more people, the only problem is human nature and the desire to screw others for profit (Africa = Govn’t/official corruption for resources = coal, gold, silver, oil and diamonds. Like Elephant tusks, change the market, the “resourse” recovers).
You were aware that Afican’s had no concept of borders, until the “whiteman” (I put that in quotes because if one traces one’s mitochondrial DNA, on your mothers side, it will lead you to Africa) arrived?
“simpleseekeraftertruth says:
September 9, 2010 at 4:49 am ”
Actually, the entire population of the planet could, albeit pretty compact (LOL), stand on the Isle of Wight, just south of Portsmouth, England.
Wasn’t it Soylent Blue which contained the real people? Was a rare treat!
Willis, you should enjoy (or be infuriated by ) this set of position papers by the UN recently. The story is carried by: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/09/08/years-setbacks-looks-world-leader/?test=latestnews and the actual position papers are linked to within the story.
The UN seems to think they can address all these “problems”, if only the rest of the world would give them the unlimited power to do so.
simpleseekeraftertruth:
Alas, you are off by a factor of 10.
Area if Ireland: 84,421 km2 = 84 billion m2
You could fit them all in County Cork!!
Great post, Willis. Great comments. I especially enjoy those who try so hard to be pessimistic in this group of trained specialists in how optimism works. The “bad government” argument is a very serious one. I think no funds (tax-payer money) should go to those bad governments under the guise of helping (feed, etc.) the “poor people of the world”. When we do these things, we primarily support bandits and thugs. Instead we should encourage the inventive use of human minds through technology in the presence of raw materials How? By sending our helpful tax dollars to those governments/societies that are creatively enabling their populace to work productively at their food supply and to live enjoyably (yes, many different definitions here, but the possibility seems to encourage amazing work efforts), men and women with relatively equal opportunities. Anything else seems like shooting ourselves in the foot. We know Earth can feed everyone.
As to the bad times — when we cannot feed ourselves, other than when bad governments are in charge — these seem to come not from “peak” something, but from drastic “climate change”. A massive volcanic eruption or multiple large ones, large impactor(s) from space, or our present unknown — the creep into the next ice age. Knowing that almost every civilization has fallen from these kinds of events (if you can’t feed your people or if those who can’t feed themselves want your land….), one would think that the malthusian-types would turn their pessimism, along with inventiveness, toward prevention, including food storage for the bad (cold) times. Historically, geologically, cosmically, these events/conditions are inevitable. We simply are very fortunate if they do not happen in our individual life times. Someone mentioned the model of Christchurch-New Zealanders building with those inevitable destructive earthquakes in mind. That’s the model I have in mind.
Jimbo says:
September 9, 2010 at 2:37 am
If you look back in history you will read about commentators who thought that the streets of London would be piled high in horse manure by 2000.
… or earlier!
And remember Ford’s comment that if you had asked the average late-19th century traveller what development he would like to see he would have replied “a faster horse”. One of the reasons why the neo-Malthusians and their close relatives the eco-luddites can win arguments relatively easily is that they can always end an explanation with “it stands to reason.”
Every time I hear that phrase I know that I am going to have an uphill battle on my hands. It is a seductive statement, partly because it involves both the speaker and the hearer in that most pleasant of pastimes — not having to exercise the intellect.
Most human development has to some extent been counter-intuitive; almost all science has sprung from a refusal to accept the status quo. Marx and his disciples (especially the ones who take his writings at face value because the alternative would be to exercise their intellects) persistently refused to acknowledge the existence of human nature either as a force for good or a force for bad or simply as a force for disproving theories.
I have never forgotten the simple marxian theory that if you set a boy to do something that will take an hour then two boys will do the same thing in 30 minutes. Anyone who believes that has never met boys; you’ll be lucky if the job gets finished in a day!
Unless of course you provide an incentive but even then the inevitable interaction between them will almost certainly act to extend the time.
And that does “stand to reason”!
Some of the best food in the World is available aplenty to us here in Oz. We have no limit to growth except age. My teeth are getting too weak to rip into a huge T-bone steak.
The concept of peak fertilizer is hardly correct. You have to look beyond the consumption phase to the waste cycle and realise that for a given, stable population there is a circulating flux of most nutrients that sustains with very little topping up. Elements like P and K do not disappear into the ether, they just get put somewhere else where it might be more expensive to recover them.
It is so blindingly correct that the big problem is government. Cross the border from Calif to Mex. Why, you can clearly see the border on Google earth because the organised patterns of US agriculture degenerate into low yield subsistence farms in a few miles. And that’s even allowing for Arnie being not too bright.
Then compare agricultural output N & S Korea. Israel and Lebanon. Use your head, not your heart.
“Some 30 years ago, I have read a book in Dutch, called “De Groene Aarde” (“The Green Earth”), that the earth can sustain about 130 billion people for food. … So, the future still looks bright…” – Ferdinand Engelbeen
”130 billion people for food” is a LOT of Soylent Green!!! Yum, the future looks bright indeed.
[:)]
RW says: (September 9, 2010 at 1:33 am) Willis, I usually love your contributions but I take some issue with this one in that I am extraordinarily tired of people who have missed the bulk of what Malthus said. […] The Essay on the Principle of Population was a very scholarly work…
Thank you for this comment. RW; it brings a nice addition to knowledge. It is all too easy to suffer from a little knowledge to the detriment of our attempts to gain wisdom.
Patrick says “Ethiopia is not the dust bowl people think it is.”
I spent a month in Ethiopia back in the 90s. Never saw so many Mercedes and Land Rovers – pretty expensive cars for such a poor country. In the country-side to the south locals would stand by the side of the road selling everything from chickens to fresh vegetables. There was food everywhere. We ate like kings (of course we had lots of money).
If history teaches us anything it it that humans have been incredibly successful. The most successful are also the wealthiest – regardless of whether you use a mean or median to calculate it.
To discuss peak oil or peak food (which are interesting points of discussion but are hardly limiting the Earth presently) you also need to discuss the distribution of oil and food to the poorest regions of the world. What do you do when people do not have money to buy?
Show me a place on this planet where humans have enough money but cannot get access to food and oil and I might start thinking like a Malthusian.
This is what is all about:
http://euro-med.dk/?p=13656
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
September 8, 2010 at 11:54 pm
That was the result of the “green revolution” (and glass greenhouses), ….
Hope global warmers´greenhouse effect would be true. Warm is good, cold is bad!
There is, however, a big problem in developed countries: starving of real knowledge and starving for lack of human values.