Peak Oil, Climate Change and the threat to food security

Guest post by David Archibald

In May, WUWT kindly hosted a post with slides from a presentation I gave to the Institute of World Politics in Washington. Following are some further slides from a presentation I gave during the week to the triennial Nuffield Conference in Perth, Australia.

peak_oil_food_fig1

Figure 1: US Wheat and Corn prices 1916 – 2011 in 2011 constant dollars

Grain prices fell 70% in constant dollar terms from the Korean War to the end of the 20th century. In 2008, energy-related inputs relative to total operating expenses were about 60% for both wheat and corn. A $200 per barrel oil price will raise operating costs by 60% from the 2008 level. A similar price response was experienced during the First Oil Shock of 1973. This time the price increase will be permanent.

peak_oil_food_fig2

Figure 2: Tunisian Wheat Consumption 1960 – 2010

The Arab Spring began with a vegetable vendor, but what they mainly eat is wheat. Figure 2 shows Tunisian wheat consumption per capita from 1960. A 2,500 calorie per day diet is 267 kg per annum of wheat and that is shown as the red line in the graph. The population of Tunisia is 10.4 million growing at 1% per annum. On that basis, Tunisian wheat demand is ratcheting up at 28,000 tonnes per annum.

peak_oil_food_fig3

Figure 3: Yemeni Grain Consumption 1968 – 2010

Yemeni agricultural production falls well short of what is required to feed them. While the average per capita consumption of wheat is half that of Tunisia, the median age is also about half that of Tunisia at 18 years. Tunisia’s is 30 years. Similarly, 43% of Yemenis are under 14 years old while the figure for Tunisia is 23%. Therefore Yemen’s biggest wheat-eating years are ahead of it. Note the big jump in grain imports in 1988.

peak_oil_food_fig4

Figure 4: Yemen Oil Production 1982 – 2015

The big jump in grain imports in 1988 is explained by the fact that 1988 was the year that Yemeni oil exports took off. Production peaked a decade ago and is now in steep decline. With or without a civil war, by the end of the decade there will be very little oil production to pay for wheat imports. The population of Yemen is 24 million growing at 2.6% per annum. Population is currently increasing at 630,000 per annum. If we assume that they all make it to adulthood and eat 267 kg of wheat per annum for a 2,500 calorie per day diet, wheat imports are ratcheting up at 170,000 tonnes per annum.

peak_oil_food_fig5

Figure 5: Afghanistan Wheat Consumption 1960 – 2010

As unpleasant as Yemen is, there is a place that is yet more execrable. To paraphrase Mark Steyn, Afghanistan is a pestilential nation of pederasts, the chief exports of which are terrorism and heroin. As Figure 5 shows, the modern history of that country is written in its wheat consumption. Wheat imports started in the mid-1970s when Afghanistan was no longer able to feed itself from its own efforts. Imports keep rising during the early years of the Russian invasion and then collapsed along with domestic production. Population growth didn’t fall below 2% per annum during this period of restricted supply. Wheat imports rose dramatically after the US started its turn at running the country. Afghanistan is very similar to Yemen in having a median age of 18 years and population growth rate of 2.4% per annum. At that rate, the current population of 29.8 million is growing by 715,000 per annum. Thus wheat demand is ratcheting up at about 190,000 tonnes per annum.

peak_oil_food_fig6

Figure 6: Population of Afghanistan from 1960 with a projection to 2025

Heroin is 25% of Afghanistan’s GDP. One day the world may stop paying for that heroin and the Danegeld for its terrorism. So where will the wheat come from then? Another alternative is that there may be a will to send Afghanistan some grain but there will be a physical lack of grain due to a climatic event. Figure 6 shows a possible future for Afghanistan’s population in the event of a sudden cessation of grain imports. Population can be expected to collapse below the natural carrying capacity of the country of about 12 million.

peak_oil_food_fig7

Figure 7: Pakistan Wheat Production 1960 – 2011

Wheat imports into Afghanistan would have to come through Pakistan which would have first call on them. Figure 7 shows that Pakistan’s wheat production profile is quite impressive with a five-fold increase from 1960 to nearly 25 million tonnes per annum.

peak_oil_food_fig8

Figure 8: Pakistan Wheat Production per Capita 1960 – 2032

Figure 8 shows that Pakistan’s per capita wheat production from 1980 has been static in the range of 120 to 140 kg per annum. If population keeps growing at its established trend rate, by 2030 Pakistan will be needing another 8 million tonnes of wheat per annum.

peak_oil_food_fig9

Figure 9: Wheat yields in developing countries 1950 – 2005

The biggest driver of higher wheat yields over the last 60 years has been the development of dwarf strains, pioneered by Norman Borlaug. In a sense, that put off the problem for a generation and made it twice as bad. Wheat yields have plateaued from 1996.

peak_oil_food_fig10

Figure 10: Egyptian wheat and corn consumption by source

Two hundred years ago, Egypt’s population is estimated to have been about 4 million. It is now 82 million and growing at 2% per annum – another 1.6 million Egyptian souls are created each year. As adults, their temporal bodies will want to consume an extra 440,000 tonnes of grain per annum. Figure 10 shows that on established trends, Egypt will be needing to import two thirds of its grain consumption. The projected import requirement matches the current level of US wheat exports.

peak_oil_food_fig11

Figure 11: Egyptian oil production and consumption 1965 – 2020

Food and fuel are subsidised in Egypt. What has helped fund that is Egypt’s oil production. That peaked in the 90s and Egypt’s oil consumption is now higher than its production. Oil and grain imports are now rising in tandem. Whoever controls Egypt from here, either the Muslim Brotherhood or the Army, will have a hard time balancing the budget.

peak_oil_food_fig12

Figure 12: US production of major grains and soybeans 1960 – 2010

The biggest increases in agricultural production in recent years have been from the US and Brazil. The mandated ethanol requirement has increased US corn production by 100 million tonnes per annum. That quantum could feed some 300 million people. In fact total US grain and soybean production could feed some 1,500 million people on a vegetarian diet, with the soybeans offsetting corn’s deficiency in lysine and tryptophan.

peak_oil_food_fig13

Figure 13: Mexican major food imports 1960 – 2010

South of the border, the situation isn’t as rosy. As Figure 13 shows, Mexico imports about half of its food requirement. With a population of 113 million growing at 1.1% per annum, there are another 1.2 million Mexicans created each year who, as adults, will need another 370,000 tonnes of imported grain to feed them.

peak_oil_food_fig14

Figure 14: Mexican oil production and consumption 1965 – 2021

Mexican oil production has peaked and is now falling rapidly towards the level of domestic Mexican consumption. That line will be reached in 2016, beyond which Mexico will have to pay for oil imports as well as increasing food imports, or do without something.

peak_oil_food_fig15

Figure 15: Brazilian sugar and soybean exports 1960 – 2010

Demand pull from China, importing 50 million tonnes of soybeans per annum, has created a supply response in other places. Figure 15, showing a dramatic increase in Brazilian soybean and sugar exports starting in the mid-1990s, begs the question of how much more land in Brazil could be put to the plough. With protein content of 38%, Brazil’s soybean exports equate to 100 million tonnes per annum of wheat in terms of protein content.

peak_oil_food_fig16

Figure 16: Russian wheat production and consumption 1987 – 2010

In accordance with good economic theory, Russian wheat production rose as a consequence of the end of communism in 1990, though it was a very lagged response. The drought in 2010 reduced production by 20 million tonnes and the Russian Government banned exports as a consequence.

peak_oil_food_fig17

Figure 17: World production of major grains in 2009

The World produces about equal quantities of wheat, rice and corn for a total of 2,200 million tonnes. This equates to 311 kg per capita for the seven billion people on the planet. The recent increase of US corn production by 100 million tonnes per annum in response to the price signal from the mandated ethanol requirement suggests that production of grains in the US could increase as the price signal increases. On that basis, there may be the ability to return more land to cropping in the US and increase production by a further 100 million tonnes per annum.

It has been estimated that Brazil has 190 million hectares of currently uncropped land that could be brought into production. Assuming 2 tonnes per hectare, Brazil’s production could rise by a further 380 million tonnes per annum. Similarly, Russia has 40 million hectares of cleared land that could be used for agriculture but currently isn’t. That might provide a further 80 million tonnes of grain per annum. The total is 670 million tonnes per annum of potential further production from the US, Brazil and Russia, which might feed 1,675 million people at 400 kg per capita.

peak_oil_food_fig18

Figure 18: World population growth rates 1950 – 2050

Figure 18 shows the World’s population growth rate from 1950 with a projection in blue to 2050. China’s Great Leap Forward shows up clearly in the chart. 30 million Chinese died as a result of a Government requirement to meet grain quotas while not allowing the peasants to retain enough to live on. This was 5% of China’s population at the time. Assuming that the World could produce a further 670 mtpa of grain and that would feed a further 1,675 million humans, that limit would be reached about two decades from now. There are likely to be some bumps along the way. At one stage in 1816, blocks of river ice from the Mississippi River were encountered by ships 100 kilometres out in the Gulf of Mexico. This was due to the Tambora eruption the year before. As the current de Vries cycle event progresses, the chance that a major volcanic eruption will have an agricultural impact continues to rise.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

168 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
EW
October 8, 2011 4:48 am

Afghanis exporting terrorism? Last time I looked, the terrorist were mostly of other nationalities. And Muslim activists, at least in Europe, together with mosque building, are paid by Saudis. BTW – there was even a proposal to make Afghan farmers produce raw opium legally, bought and exported for medical purposes, but USA blocked that.
Back to grain – maybe someone should notice European Union leaders – they still favor converting of fields to nature-close meadows or wetlands, cultivating energy plants instead of edible crops and planting fotovoltaic panels instead of sowing cereals.
I’ve read in a British governmental pamphlet, that farmers should change from food producers to landscape guardians.

EW
October 8, 2011 4:54 am

Chas said
schemes to use bits of land for ‘environmental’ benefit, eg 6m grass strips alongside ditches and streams to reduce fertliser and pesticide runoff, field corners and strips of flower and clover mixes for pollinators and other insects and areas planted for overwinter bird feed.
Oh yes.
And now there starts a completely new research on how to get ergot from cereals.
You know – that pesky poisonous fungus, whose presence in cereals was limited already in 50’s by simple measures as NOT leaving grass strips near fields or mowing such strips twice a year to prevent grasses from blooming and using an occasional fungicide spray. All these things are now a big no-no because of “ecological” approach to agriculture. Necessity of reinvent a wheel again…

October 8, 2011 4:57 am

Excellent analysis. Fossil fuels are essential to any advanced economy. But food is more essential.
The rise in CO2 is closely tracked by the rise in agricultural productivity. But in their ravenous desire to demonize “carbon” in order to tax the air we breathe, the climate alarmists are deliberately condemning hundreds of millions of poor folks to death by starvation. But they don’t care in the least. They only crave those tax dollars.

R. de Haan
October 8, 2011 4:57 am

Short term risk is the man made economic collapse.
When farmers can no longer afford buying the seeds, the insecticides and the fuel to work their land…
When the distribution system collapses….
When the US dollar decline, rising oil prices and speculation triggered price hikes buy’s less food, less oil and less seeds….
We are already seeing a second wave of food riots similar to 2008 building quickly.
Things will get worse short term and wide spread famines in Asia a.o. North korea, the Middle East, the Magreb, East- and West Africa and Middle and South America will fill the International agenda’s very soon.
Armed conflict, waste of capital and resources due to the climate change doctrine including the transformation of food crops into bio fuels, more expensive modified seed concepts, rising oil prices, speculation and corruption are driving trends and forces that will deprive a large part of the current world population from affordable food short term.
In the news now:
China ploughs a new corn furrow
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MJ08Ad04.html
Nestle Chief warns of new food riots
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/14847/nestle-chief-warns-of-new-food-riots
North Korea famine looms
http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/north-korean-famine-looms-4454826
Also read what Spengler recently wrote about Egypt and China
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/spengler.html

Curiousgeorge
October 8, 2011 5:01 am

How many of y’all think that all the cropland in a country is owned by the citizens or govt’ of that country? You might be surprised to know that there is a rapidly growing international market for crop and forest land.
=====================================================================
Jeff Conrad has been in the business of farmland investment for more than 20 years, and he’s never seen more interest in buying property internationally than now.
“There is definitely a change in the U.S. and elsewhere,” says Conrad, the president of Boston-based Hancock Agricultural Investment Group, which purchases and manages farmland in the U.S., Canada and Australia on behalf of institutional investors. It currently has more than $1 billion invested in permanent crops, such as almond groves and major row crops. “We have people calling us out of the blue who want to learn more about our products.”
Interest in farmland isn’t limited to individuals or institutional investors. Countries like China and some in the Middle East are purchasing or leasing large tracts of land in Africa, Australia or South America. The reason? With little arable farmland and limited land resources to expand agricultural production, they are seeking to secure access to crops in the future.
“The primary concerns of the funds from the Middle East,” Conrad says, “is food security. That is my sense of their No. 1 concern.”
Land lovers. The world demand for farmland is further encouraged when you consider today’s existing global “fundamentals,” such as rising commodity prices and economic development around the world, Conrad says. The establishment of burgeoning middle classes in China and India”with increased demand for grain and meat”are further driving the interest in land.
A World Bank report, “Rising Global Interest in Farmland,” released last year, showed international farm sales totaling 111 million acres (about 45 million hectares) in 2009. Prior to that, the average rate of international sales was about 9.9 million acres annually.
Cont’d at link: http://www.dtn.com/ag/food_security/land.cfm

Frank K.
October 8, 2011 5:20 am

Food shortages will never hit home in the U.S. as long as we can visit our local supermarket and see their shelves stocked to the brim with food products we need and use, and priced reasonably.
If the progressives have their way, we will eventually see empty shelves and long lines to obtain basic food items due to shortages. This is because they are doing everything they can to ruin our economy – just look at the lazy progressives who are participating in the Occupy Wall Street protests.
And then, of course, there are the wealthy government science elites like Jim Hansen who want to kill both jobs and energy security (all while hypocritically consuming petroleum products). This is why CAGW-ism must be fought now. It is my fervent hope that after next year’s elections in the U.S., we’ll be able to finally zero-fund the government portion of the CAGW climate industry…

Chuck L
October 8, 2011 5:23 am

This ia a very interesting analysis. Does it assume increasing amount of arable land continues to be used to grow corn for ethanol, a foolish, misguided, inefficient, uneconomic use of resources? The US and Canada , together, absolutely should use their ability to grow grains as an economic lever to counter OPEC and the natural gas cartel that Russia is trying to create in Europe.

John Mason
October 8, 2011 5:37 am

Frank K. says:
October 8, 2011 at 5:20 am
“Food shortages will never hit home in the U.S. as long as we can visit our local supermarket and see their shelves stocked to the brim with food products we need and use, and priced reasonably.”
Unfortunately, that’s like saying, “nothing will ever go wrong so long as it doesn’t”!
The issue has nothing to do with political protests in Wall St or anywhere else. It has everything to do with geological constraints and EROEI with respect to finite natural resources. Oil is finite. If it was infinite, why do you (and Redneck, above) think we are having to drill the Deepwater sites, and why are companies drawing up plans to explore the Arctic as soon as the retreating ice makes that feasible?
Cheers – John

Philip Bradley
October 8, 2011 5:39 am

Some what OT for this blog, but people who demonize ‘speculators’ simply don’t understand how markets work
What a speculator does is increase supply and decrease prices at times of greatest demand.
In a famine, the foresight of speculators will save lives.

Dave
October 8, 2011 5:44 am

Single cell protein can easily outproduce Triticales sps. The technology is well developed.

Patrick Davis
October 8, 2011 5:54 am

“AntonyIndia says:
October 8, 2011 at 1:17 am”
Agreed. Ditto in Africa.

jim
October 8, 2011 6:00 am

I’m skeptical of peak oil claims. Shale oil and gas is a game changer. For example, Egypt has shale deposits. The amounts in Egypt are small compared to many other oil shales, but even Egypt has some. From the link:
“An estimation of the total volume of all potential organic rich Cretaceous shale amounts to 4.5
billion bbl of oil in place concerning the area Safaga-Qusseir. In the area of Abu Tartour 1.2 billion
bbl of oil in place was calculated by Troger, (1984).
The obtained results favor that the black shale widely distributed in Egypt represent promising
target for detailed evaluation studies as high potential resource for energy.”
http://geoconvention.org/archives/2007abstracts/055S0129.pdf

Philip Bradley
October 8, 2011 6:01 am

I was going to leave the peak oil aspect alone, but my 2c worth.
What David’s graphs show is that the current oil exporting, food importing, mostly Middle East nations will be in deep trouble, not because of Peak Oil, but because of peak low technology oil.
The trend over the last 20 years is toward higher technology oil/gas/coal extraction.
The trend is accelerating with shale gas fracking and expanding oil sands production.
The next wave is robotic mining. A mine is about to open here in Western Australia with no underground workers. All the underground work is done by robots controlled from 2,000 Ks away in Perth.

richard telford
October 8, 2011 6:08 am

[snip – sorry Telford, not going to allow you to start your own thread hijack here because you don’t like one of Archibald’s slides, your trolling is tiresome – Anthony]

Tim Minchin
October 8, 2011 6:18 am

[snip – too far off topic – will turn into a hijack on the topic – Anthony]

Peter Dunford
October 8, 2011 6:24 am

David
The expansion of the Yemini population with the falling trend for oil revenues implies a dire future for Yemen and trouble for it’s neighbours. However, why do you imply that Yemen’s demand for wheat is increasing at 170,000 tons a year when it is probably stable on that falling consumption trend? (Assuming, of course, that trend continues, I don’t know what they’re eating, but only 40% of those 2500 a day come from wheat based on your figures. Is that trend following the oil revenues down?).

theBuckWheat
October 8, 2011 6:29 am

Please don’t ever fall for the sophistry of “peak oil”. We do not burn crude oil in our cars, trucks and airplanes. We burn very carefully refined fuel products made of molecules that are assembled, atom by atom, by a process that breaks down the molecules from some raw, hydrocarbon rich, feedstock.
Crude oil is the primary feedstock for the only reason that, for the time being, it is the least costly source of those atoms. But when crude oil was in short supply during World War II, the Germans used coal as the source of molecules. Based on today’s prices, it becomes less expensive to convert coal to diesel fuel when crude oil costs more than $80/bbl. But we can use other sources of hydrocarbons. A company in Carthage, Missouri was selling a form of diesel fuel that was made by rendering the waste products of slaughtering turkeys. It went bankrupt not because the process didn’t work, but because the resulting product was more expensive than customers wanted to pay. The company had previously run successful tests to convert municipal solid waste and sewage sludge into diesel fuel. They computed that there was enough sewage sludge in the US to supply around half of its diesel fuel needs if properly converted.
The end issue is cost. Presently, fuels made by refining crude oil cost less than fuels made by refining coal, sewage sludge, or turkey carcasses. But the instant those later sources are less expensive, the market will start to use them. We don’t fret about ‘peak whale’ because when overhunting caused the price of whale oil to rise, other sources of oil for lamps was found from coal and crude oil. Then electricity came into use for lighting of homes and streets. Today, even the use of Coleman lamps (that burn a form of gasoline) for illuminating camp sites is giving way to lights that use efficient LEDs and batteries. We can no longer buy whale oil, and who would light their home with it anyway? Neither would they use an open gas flame, as was done for decades.
An exciting frontier of research is to use genetically engineered algaes to produce usable fuel molecules. A recent article stated that at the present time, the break even costs were in the ballpark of $200/bbl. The carbon atoms for algae-produced fuels would come from the CO2-rich gasses from coal-fired power plants.
The plain truth is that we are awash in hydrocarbons that can be converted to usable fuel products. The only issue is cost, that is if government will not intrude and distort economic decisions like it presently does with corn-based ethanol.
“Peak Oil” is a lie that is used in an attempt to stampede policymakers and the public into choices that cannot be productive in the long run, and certainly ones will raise costs and destroy liberty in the process.

October 8, 2011 6:33 am

We are in global peak oil now. Essential viewing.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3201781.htm

Keitho
Editor
October 8, 2011 6:56 am

John Marshall says:
October 8, 2011 at 2:00 am (Edit)
Developed countries tend to grow far more of their own food, and export some. Africa needs development to push this assumption into fact. Zimbabwe used to feed Africa when white farmers worked their own lands. Now they have their land confiscated and given to locals who have no expertise or desire to farm by a government led by a criminal Mugabe. The funds wasted trying to prove AGW could have been better spent pushing African development and easing the world food problems.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
If the west hadn’t pumped in large quantities of food to Zimbabwe Mugabe’s government would have fallen in the first couple of years of the “Land reforms”. The west has actually propped up Mugabe, as they have many corrupt and incompetent regimes in Africa.

jim
October 8, 2011 6:57 am

Philip Bradley says:
October 8, 2011 at 6:01 am
*****
For Middle Eastern countries, nuclear is their salvation. Of course, there is a concern due to their belligerent nature, but with nuclear, they can make enough electricity to desalinate sea water. They have plenty of sunshine. Then they can grow food. It would be best to grow the food in a closed system so that water could be recycled. Extra CO2 would also help 😉

Hoser
October 8, 2011 6:57 am

Of course, our population is limited by solar energy (crop production), and fossil energy (crop planting, harvesting, transport). We consume much more energy per capita to live in the comforts of civilization than say a family living on a few acres growing their own food. Who wants a new Cultural Revolution where we all go back to the farms? Oh, yeah, the idiots occupying Wall Street and the White House.
Gosh, it looks like the world is headed for a serious crash. Yes, that would be true if the same people running government now keep making decisions. There are two ways out:
1) Extend the benefits of civilization to more of the world’s population. When that happens, the birth rate will fall. Europe’s population is shrinking except for the third-world immigrants who still retain a culture of high birth rate. The United States is also headed toward a negative population growth rate also except for immigration.
2) Develop methods to produce more food, eventually, through biosynthetic food production facilities. The goal is to decouple the human population from arable land area.
In the first approach, we would hope to keep the population limited voluntarily. Seems to work well in some places. However, the benefits of civilization require higher per capita energy consumption. In the second approach, we substitute another energy source for the sun, converting that energy into food. If we can do that, we convert the process from 2 dimensional geometry to perhaps 3 dimensional geometry, or at least reduce the land-area footprint required to produce food. Here again, a very potent energy souce will be required.
Greens are not giving us a way out. Their policies do not lead to the production of enough energy to maintain civilization. They convert our energy supply to one that is also dependent on land area. That’s going in the wrong direction. We need compact forms of energy. Oil is not the answer. Nuclear energy is. The solution is natural gas -> fission -> fusion. Hand wringing about Fukushima is missing the point. If we don’t produce enough energy per capita, the world population will crash. There is better technology available to produce energy from fission, and we need to figure out how to sustain better than break-even fusion in the next couple of centuries.
The Greens are leading us to starvation disease and death on a scale the world has never seen. The Black Death was terrible, with a 50% drop in population. The Green Death certainly will be worse.

October 8, 2011 7:11 am

Encouraging is that the volcanic activity has ramped down as the sun has recently shifted into a higher gear.
Discouraging though is the issues about the really big bad boy eruptions may not follow what the kids do.

guidoLaMoto
October 8, 2011 7:23 am

“(Technology advances).. pioneered by Norman Borlaug. In a sense, that put off the problem for a generation and made it twice as bad. ”
That’s the key to the whole article: if we concentrate only on increasing food supply, we temporarily can raise the carrying capacity and allow a harder, deeper fall in population when a crisis in another limiting factor inevitably occurs.
I keep hearing this deep, booming voice in my head. Anybody know what a “cubit” is?

Editor
October 8, 2011 7:23 am

Mr. Archibald,
What is the reason that world wheat production has leveled since 1996?