Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Bill McKibben, the skeptics best friend, can always be depended on to provide interesting claims. Never one to let a good crisis go to waste, he opines on the tsunami and our “shrinking margins” over at the Guardian. A number of people have highlighted various of his ideas, not all of them favorably. One claim of his that I have not seen discussed is the following:
We’re seeing record temperatures that depress harvests – the amount of grain per capita on the planet has been falling for years.
Figure 1. Food and Protein per capita. The LDCs are the “Least Developed Countries”, the poorest of the world’s countries. Red and orange are total food supply (right scale). Dark and light blue are protein (left scale). DATA SOURCE
Let’s start by considering the real issue. People eat a host of things, not just grains. So the issue is not the number of kilogrammes of grain produced per person. That’s only part of the story. The real issue is, how well are we feeding the ~ 7 billion people of the world?
The first thing that Figure 1 shows is that after years of making little gain, since the early 1990s the food supply in the LDCs has been improving (orange line). There’s still a ways to go, but the trend is upwards.
The next thing is quite surprising. In the year 2007 (the last year for which we have data), the people in the poorest countries (orange line) were getting almost as many daily calories as the global average in 1961 (red line). To me, this is an amazing accomplishment. Remember that during this time, the population of the planet more than doubled. Despite that, both the poorest of the poor, and the global population as a whole, are better fed than at any time in history.
Finally, globally there is no sign of any recent decrease in nutrition levels. Nor do nutrition levels appear to be connected in any way to the temperature.
However, to be fair, that wasn’t McKibben’s claim. He said that grain production per capita on the planet has been “falling for years”, so let’s check that. Figure 2 shows those numbers, with the data again from FAOSTAT.
Figure 2. Production per capita for all cereal grains. Figures for the LDCs represent domestic cereal production divided by domestic population.
Has global grain production per capita been “falling for years” as McKibben claims? The observations say no. Globally, it peaked at just above 350 kg per person around 1980 and has dipped less than 10% and come back up since then.
For the LDCs, on the other hand, their domestic cereal grain production was unable to keep up with their domestic population growth until the early 1990s. Since then, due in part to decreasing population growth rates, LDC grain production per capita has been rising steadily. There’s no sign of any recent change in that rising trend. Anything is possible tomorrow, of course. But there’s no sign of falling grain production as McKibben claims, from temperature or any other cause.
So, what’s the current score in the battle of the farmers of the planet to feed the ever-increasing masses?
Farmers: 1 … Malthus: 0.
Oh, and McKibben’s score? … -1 for truth content, but high marks for entertainment value.
w.
PS – The continued ability of the world to feed itself, despite adding a total of four billion people to the planet in the last fifty years, is an unparalleled and largely unrecognized success for humanity. I am so tired of people like McKibben not only not acknowledging that, but going so far as to claim that the trend has reversed and that things are getting worse. That’s nonsense. In terms of world nutrition, things are better than they have ever been, even for the poorest countries. Not only that, but they continue to improve. That’s a huge success.
So rather than incessant whining about how terrible things are, how about we take some pride in that success, and think about what it is we’ve done right to achieve that, and how to do more of whatever that was that got us here?
[UPDATE TWO WEEKS LATER] Here’s the latest of Bill McKibben’s “depressed harvests”, from the WSJ … India has so much grain from several years of record harvests that it has run out of warehouse space to store it.
India Foodgrain Output to Hit Record High
By BANIKINKAR PATTANAYAK
NEW DELHI –India’s foodgrains output is set to rise to a record 235.88 million metric tons this crop year, according to government estimates, a figure which is likely to pave the way to lifting the export ban on wheat and common rice varieties.
Citing the government’s latest crop estimates, Farm Minister Sharad Pawar said wheat output during the year through June is likely to rise to 84.27 million tons from 80.8 million tons last year, while rice output will increase to 94.11 million tons from 89.09 million tons over the same period.
“The government should now give serious thought about storage, allocation to states and export of rice and wheat,” Mr. Pawar told a news conference.
India imposed a ban on the export of wheat and common grades of rice three years ago to curb prices, and since then the government’s grain stocks have swelled to more than double its requirement.
Consequently, state-run warehouses ran out of space last year and the government was forced to store some of the grain in the open. The storage crunch may worsen this year because of the record output. The government is expected to make a decision next month on lifting the export ban on wheat and common rice grades.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
and this is on top of 40% of our grain/corn being diverted to biofool……………
Willis, great post as always. But you left out the carbon content of all that food and protein. My corn flakes box says they have 80 grams of carbohydrate per 100 grams, and chemists tell us that the carbon content of a carbohydrate is about 40%. And without carbon there’s no protein at all. Can you explain to McKibben where that carbon comes from? surely not from the wicked emissions arising from hydrocarbon combustion? There is no way the 7 billion today could be as well fed as they are with the level of atmospheric CO2 as it was in 1960 for the 3 billion or so then.
Although I’m not a warmist in any shade there is a hard fact of a vastly increased population to feed by an agri-industry that ABSOLUTELY relies on the petro-chemical industry to maintain the real production seen.
It is a reality that there is no replacement for this and a time will absolutely arrive where the petro-chemical industry will simply not be able to keep up. Just a fact without any political undercurrent in my head.
Then it will all get interesting as I’m not one who subscribes to the view that ‘technology’ will always have an answer…..
In times to come it will be called ‘The Great Cull’…….
But then maybe I’m completely mad….I’m open to argument.
Butbutbut you hate starving people because you challenge the narrative! It’s perfectly fine for people who CARE more than you to make up stories so that the dire situation seems even worse. They HAVE to lie so that the Cause will get enough Awareness!
I would bet the drop in grain production can be atributed to ethanol production! Progressive extremists meet The Law of Unintended Consequences.
Prairie grass is a drought resistant and cold resistant palatable forage crop that is currently being grown to address a changing climate. The American Bison seemed to have thrived in millions of head per herd in the American West and it is likely that dairy and beef cattle can survive on a diet which is similar. It is unfathomable that we give credence to folks who have no knowledge of agriculture, past or present who insist on giving a prediction for the future. It reminds me that global climate change scientists are really out in left field; they don’t know umph from apple butter.
What is the source of the information in your charts Willis?
Let’s look at the situation in the Middle East where populations are growing extraordinarily .The grain harvest in Syria – down 20% since 2001 when it peaked.Likewise in Iraq, the harvest is down 25% from a peak in 2002. Jordan’s harvest is down from 300000 tons to 60000 tons in 40 years. Israel imports 98% of its grain. The problem is falling water tables and accordingly, less water for irrigation. The idea of desalinating sea water for this use is a non-starter because of the expense involved.(These statistics are taken from Lester Brown and the Earth Policy Insitute publications.)
In the USA, water available for irrigation is diminishing in the mid West, and in the South West.Much of the water which would otherwise be available is now being diverted for city use. Irrigated land in Texas, for example is down from a peak in 1978, 0f 7 million acres to 5 million acres. California’s irrigated acreage is down from 9 million acres in 1997 to 7.5 million acres in 2010.
Large countries such as China, India and Pakistan are on the edge of crisis, surviving in an unsustainable water bubble, having to buy large tracts of land in Africa to grow enough grain to feed their growing populations. All of this is well documented in multiple sources.
This is why we find ourselves spending hundreds of billions of dollars (pounds, euros, etc) each year to fight against that imaginary foe named CO2.
BM: “It is a reality that there is no replacement for this and a time will absolutely arrive where the petro-chemical industry will simply not be able to keep up.”
The world is awash in Natural Gas thanks to Shale Gas *despite greens attempt to sabotage).
“In the USA in 2004, 317 billion cubic feet of natural gas were consumed in the industrial production of ammonia, less than 1.5% of total U.S. annual consumption of natural gas.”
The US has hundreds of years of NG.
And some fertilizers are mined – potash is a good example.
The Guardian is also full of articles and comments against GM, which they consider to be Monsanto’s private monopoly and therefore bad. Bacteria and viruses have been moving around genes unconsciously since they occurred on Earth, but now that Man can do it consciously it is suddenly super dangerous, another Armageddon.
The poor and hungry in the world have been left out by the leftovers from the Left.
Well, Bowel Movement@6:46pm, I’m sorry but I think your argument and your chosen blogging name are much of a muchness.
Rather that pointing out the weakness of the “peak oil” or “peak fossil fuel” dogma (after all, the stone age didn’t end when we ran out of rocks), just consider…
Which looks like a bigger challenge?
(1) Control the climate when we’re not even sure how it works.
Or
(2) Turn abundent coal (or even a host of other organic things other than food) into fuel for agricultural production and distribution?
Hmmmmmm. A tough one.
But (hint) the South Africans have been producing oil from coal for decades.
What if the world concentrated its scientists and engineers (and, yes, farmers) into solving real problem rather than pouring trillions into cAGW dogma?
What then?
“Expert” predictions of calamity have a long history. Of unmitigated error and failure.
Martin Brumby and BillyBob
That’s my real name.
I wasn’t commenting on ‘peak oil’ or any such concept. I don’t even suggest a timescale to the issue, I simply state that it WILL be at some point. In any case I have no qualification whatsoever to comment on such things. However, I have an ‘intuition’ if you like. Personally I have no emotive need for argument as such..Much prefer discussion.
I would like to hear argument that endless growth in population can be endlessly provided for.
With reference to consumption in any event may I please ask that you to watch this link..I simply have little in the way of ‘argument’ to contradict the message here. I’d be grateful for considered responses.
Ta
As an aside I also drive a 6ltr V8 with deep enjoyment and zero guilt. I feel you misunderstood my position, I hope it’s clearer at this point.
I am on your side, just pointing out other problems with the stance, that’s all.
I have no doubt that your data is sound, but – and there’s a tangent warning – I will call shenanigans on this statement
No, they haven’t been. We’re feeding the poorest in the world a nutritionally vacant diet based upon genetically engineered cereal grains and reducing once robust agri-ecosystems to monoculture deserts. People are not receiving better nutrition – they are receiving more calories. A quick look at the urban poor will show that one can be over-fed [read: obese] yet malnourished. That’s exactly what we’re doing to the “Global South” when we increase their protein intake via soy and calorie intake via corn and wheat.
Moreover, we’re doing the same thing to ourselves by growing our staple crops in soil that is recharged annually. The nutrient content of factory-farmed foods has been decreasing steadily as our soil is degraded.
To the point, it’s little more than entertainment to discuss the current state of our world food supply in terms of cereal grains. We should be looking at utilization of scrub land for herding and native agricultural diversity. But, those aren’t easily measured statistics that allow climate-alarmists to promote sensational quotes such as the one at the beginning of your post.
FWIW
Environmental rationalism tell us that the true hero is not Rachel Carson – but agronomist .
Instead of saving a few species of birds and killing tens of millions of people in her memory (“well, only brown and black people the world is better off without” they would say, if honest), he saved over one-billion men, women and children.
Such are the achievements of the green revolution. It is tragic that they are ignored or – as with the risible McKibben – denied.
Here is celebrating his towering achievements.
oops
Here is celebrating his towering achievements.
The problem is the cost of production relative to return, food production can be ramped up significantly as soon as it becomes economically viable to so. In Australia at the moment milk is on the supermarket shelves cheaper than water, and this is in spite of the fact that water is available free of charge at numerous locations.
In fact for most of the Western world, food no longer has an economic value and this is the primary reason for the drop in supply.
I have a cattle station/ranch in outback Australia, at the moment I am operating at less than 50% capacity. Because in order to run more cattle I would have to employ more cowboys, and there is simply not enough profit in cattle production at the moment to compete with the mines and oil rigs in terms of employee salaries.
Someone said it is not economically viable to desalinate water to grow crops.
Have a think about this; you don’t need you Mac Mansion, your flashy car, or your flashy clothes.
You do need to eat. Trust me when you get hungry you won’t hesitate to spend the same amount of money on your food. That you currently spend on your car, your clothes, and your house.
When that happens it most certainly will be economically viable to desalinate water to grow food
Peak phosphorus is capable of being a game changer for crop yields. One fellow says the average wheat yield of 9 tons/hectare would drop to 4 tons/hectare by 2100 without phosphorus fertilization. Morroccan mines will rule the commodities market.
Look for government to let your grandkids use incadescent light bulbs but require recycling urine into struvite, for the phosphorus. My surmise is food will shift into mycotic culture, like breeding myco-protein and sequential steps innoculating plant cellulose for human foodstuffs. The reduction in water required to produce them will go toward people’s daily ration.
Bowel movement says:
March 26, 2011 at 6:46 pm
Ummm … you do know that people have been predicting that very outcome, ever since the time of Malthus, and it hasn’t yet come true?
So while you may certainly say it is a possibility, it is by no means a “fact”.
w.
So Willis, what is the end-point?.
Please watch the video above and get back to me but don’t attack me from some misguided sense that I’m an ‘ist’ of any sort.
Just watch and then educate me.
Actually I do say it’s a fact. Infinite growth over infinite time is not possible.
As you say Willis …’yet’.
Andy:
Infinite growth is another of the Malthusian fallacies. As societies grow wealthier they reproduce at a lower rate. As east and south Asia develop their birth rates drop. The same will happen in Africa and South America, but only if we stop trying to thwart development by denying them access to affordable fossil fuels (which mean affordable energy, thus allowing them to develop and become wealthier).
Every time I fill my car with 13 gallons of gasoline diluted with 10% ethanol, I figure I’m burning up 34.2 pounds of corn. That’s corn already removed from the cob, mind you. I always wonder how much corn meal that would make.