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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@theBuckWheat says:
October 8, 2011 at 6:29 am:
Ditto. ‘Peak Oil’ is a story used to scare us into quit using oil now, because someday we will run out. As you point out, there are plenty of substitutes available and it’s only economics that make oil our best fuel choice now.
What the ‘Peak Oil’ panic-people don’t understand is economics. The market is not static. As the price of oil goes up, reserves that aren’t feasible to harvest now become economically viable. As does coal to liquid and other oil substitutes.
The issue is NOT whether or not there is an absolute, fixed amount of oil available. Let’s assume for argument’s sake that the geological processes that create the oil we have now have stopped and no more oil is being produced. That’s not the issue. We have decades worth of usable oil and centuries worth of oil replacements available using today’s technology.
Where to start?
1. Peak Oil. We don’t give a cr*p about “peak oil”. We give a cr*p about cost effective energy. Unshackle the nuclear industry, ramp up thorium and other options, unshackle coal and natural gas…we still would have a peak I suppose, in a couple of millenium. The “peak” problem is an energy rpoblem not an oil problem, and it is a problem we have imposed on ourselves.
2. Food supply. I consider those numbers interesting, but meaningless because they exclude food production other than a select number of grain crops. Do fruit, vegeteables, beef, pork, mutton, fish and poultry have no calories in them? Is the production of these insignificant and so they don’t need to be included in the big picture? Come on!
3. Past performance is no indicator of future trends. You simply cannot take countries that have had recent violent strife, note their median age, and extrapolate their growth as if that were “normal”.
4. Some countries that have low rates of education, low standards of living, have had huge oil profits with which to subsidize food prices, and as their oil production falls, they’ll need to import both food and oil. Gee. Most countries that are self sufficient in food are also importers of oil, have high levels of education and free market economies. See the problem here? Egypt and Yemen and so on COULD have invested in better education systems, free market economies, and so on, but they didn’t. Now they appear to be running out of oil, and so that’s an indication of a global problem? No. That’s an indication of bad government.
5. Sudden events devastating to agriculture. Yup, that could be bad. Of course with plentiful energy we could get a ton more food out of greenhouse systems. With plentiful energy we could irrigate the Sahara and other deserts were even if a drop in temperature whiped out crops in Canada, it would still be more than warm enough to grow almost any crop you can think of.
We’ve little to fear here other than our own fear of the unknown shackling our creativity and inventive spirit. The limits we have to respond to both short and long term problems are simply limits that we have set upon ourselves.
Figure 1 shows that prices of corn and wheat are not high by historical standards. Those prices are coming off a long-term low. So current high food prices, if they are high, cannot be blamed on corn or ethanol.
As stated with the figure, 60 percent of the cost of production is the cost of the energy. Additional production can come, by shifting land from other uses or by increasing yields. The capability of an acre of land by itself to produce has been maximized and exceeded in the US. Yields can be increased from what they are but that increase requires larger inputs, inputs that are highly related in cost to energy. More corn can be produced per acre, but that requires fertilizer and water. Either one requires energy to produce, the fertilizer is produced directly from methane as a chemical not energy input. If you want more grain produced, and it can be with existing technology, the price of the grain has to be higher in relation to the price of the energy.
Now this site is adding the peak oil nutters? Are the 9/11 Truthers next?
Yes, you are missing something. Check your assumptions. Check also the assumptions of the special interests whose sites you link.
A few points worth noting about the Ogallala aquifer. First, it is very large, second, not all areas of the aquifer are experiencing declines, and third, most of the “alarming” projections are based on linear trends applied to a non-linear phenomenon.
Beyond those points it is abundantly clear that other sources of water need to be developed where declines are not sustainable. This however takes precious resources – time, money, and commitment from political leaders. Currently way too many of those precious resources are being sucked into the vortex of global warming nonsense.
jrwakefield says:
October 8, 2011 at 8:45 am
Frumious Bandersnatch says:
[snipped out]
Within a few short years Mexico will no longer be able to export as Cantarell dies. Again, it’s not about
what’s in the ground, it’s about how fast it can be extracted.
=====================================
jr, Mexican oil is not dead yet. Yes they have had problems and yes the Cantarell field (Mexico’s largest producer) is declining despite the injection of massive amounts of nitrogen.
But PEMEX is a state-run entity that can’t easily raise money to develop fields that require a longer term strategy. This is more a problem for the government. Massive amounts of infrastructure and technology are required to develop new fields and this will take time. But there is more oil and one day it will be extracted.
Yes oil production has peaked. It will peak again. And it is what’s in the ground that is important. If it isn’t in the ground, it can’t be extracted. Exploration 101.
RE: Fit_Nick: (October 8, 2011 at 3:09 am)
“Here is some simple arithmetic which is worth watching and puts some perspective on this subject.”
I think this is a very good video series indicating why we may be on the verge of a period of general resource depletion crisis. It appears that we have already reached and fallen back from peak per capita oil production several decades ago. It is obvious from the nature of the exponential function that the exponential growth, of which we have become accustomed, cannot continue indefinitely.
Some may find this “end of abundance” scenario disturbing, and may choose to avoid it as this is a problem out of our control and it will announce itself in its own
goodtime.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/08/peak-oil-climate-change-and-the-threat-to-food-security/#comment-762366
Worse than we thought then, but in a monotonously depressing way.
I’m not sure the ‘unpleasant’ and ‘pestilential’ humans of Yemen and Afghanistan (respectively) will have too much time for these simplistic catastrophic fancies.
I do not know about peak oil, never did research on that, but I can say we are not near “peak food” (even as food production requires energy). This post, methinks, should have been better (even if highly debatable) if it was limited to oil, not letting food get in the middle: that only confuses things.
I am afraid to say that the post mixes several facts together, when they have to be separated. Wheat is used for human food production in most of the world, with the exception of Europe, where it goes into animal feed, competing with corn. Corn is used as feedstuff for animal feeding in much of the world, with the exception of Mexico, where is used for tortilla production while sorghum (milo) goes into animal feedstuff instead. In Venezuela white corn is used for human food and yellow corn as animal feedstuff.
In the US, about 30% of all corn harvested is used now for ethanol production. Ethanol is used as car fuel just because it is subsidized. In Brazil, Colombia and other tropical countries, ethanol is produced from a by-product of sugar manufacturing. As from a by-product, the cost is lower than that of ethanol from corn.
Animal feeds now use lots of DDGS (Distiller’s Dried Grains and Solubles) co-products from corn fermentation for ethanol. Too rich in protein and low in energy, requiring re-balancind the diets for steady growth.
And as for human nutrition, very little food is unprocessed grains. Most grain production goes to feed manufacturing for animals. Most of it is for poultry (chicken and eggs). Humans have learned to increase yield of reared animals to meet the demand for protein as the population grows. It was necessary to provide 20 kg of feed to obtain one kg of breast meat from chickens in 1957; that figure was 8 kg in 2003.
The cost of meat inthe supermarket does not linearly reflect energy or grain prices. Efficiencies can be found and exploited everywhere. As example, Argentina is changing their meat production pattern from free ranging to feed-lot (confined) growth and the freed land is put to corn and soybean production, adding to the world grain supply.
The cost of energy and agricultural inputs are indeed a problem, however this stimulates research in food production technologies to provide wholesome and, still, economic food for the masses.
The Peak Oil argument is no different than the “hockey” stick argument made by warmists. Its a millenial cult like y2k or 2012 or any of the other doomsday arguments.
There are at least 3.5 trillion barrels of recoverable oil in oil shale. About half of which is in the US and Canada.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/08/progress-to-unlocking-over-800-billion.html
As for food, we can raise a lot of it in the developing nations if Enclosure is used. Europe moved from the commons to enclosure around the 1600s and this is when food production took off. First in Denmark, then in England. Most agriculture around the world is very inefficient and subsistence based.
More Soylent Green! says:
October 8, 2011 at 9:31 am
davidmhoffer says:
October 8, 2011 at 9:34 am
I agree with these two posts – well said.
Peak oil and peak food arguments I find unconvincing; but I am interested in the arguments. I am also interested that how fabulously inaccurate they always end up being. Are we thinking about these problems correctly?
Here’s food for thought if you want to think big: Space Based Solar Power
http://spacesolarpower.wordpress.com/
Not an agricultural expert, but just by looking around I get the impression that North America and Europe (don’t travel enough elsewhere) have quite a bit of potentially arable land from which to squeeze more corn or wheat if needed. The prices so far just don’t seem to make it worthwhile.
How some poor country or other is going to pay for its needs is an entirely different matter – as it always has been; deplorably, people have been going hungry despite globally abundant food supply for a long time.
Hector M. says:
October 8, 2011 at 9:28 am
———————————————–
Thanks for that Hector. I do not subscribe to the catastrophic theories either. But immigration will become more difficult as rich countries struggle to stay out of recession. This is another reason why I see serious problems for countries having declining domestic oil production. It is tough to diversify during a world wide economic slow down and revenue from oil is a relatively easy game.
“there is a place that is yet more execrable.”
What unit of measure is used for this scientific fact.
>>Redneck says: October 8, 2011 at 5:10 am
>>Peak oil? Not that old canard again.
Sorry Redneck, fossil fuels are a limited resource, and therefore Peak Oil (a maximum peak in production) is a foregone conclusion carved in stone. The only controversy, is the timing of Peak Oil – over which there is much debate.
Note also in these many graphs, that it isnprimarily the lands of Islam that are overpopulating the world. The horn of Africa may well complain to the world of drought and famine, but will not admit to trebling their population in 30 years. Likewide the North Afican nations, that have doubled their populations. Why should the West, which is being largely responsible with its population levels, support the irresponsible?
Wars are won by ‘boots on the ground’. Demographic wars are won by infant ‘bootees in the cot’. If we are not careful, we in the West will be feeding the hand that outbreeds and bites us.
.
Actually, what I find unconvincing are claims of unlimited food, unlimited petroleum, and unfettered population growth. If the world population were to double every forty years, as it did between 1960 and 2000 we would have populations of 3 billion (1960), 6 billion (2000), 12 billion (2040), 24 billion (2080), 48 billion (2120), 96 billion (2160), 192 billion (2200), 384 billion (2240), 768 billion (2280) . . .
Exponential growth applies where a quantity can grow in proportion to its size, where every particle of the measured size contributes to the production of more particles. I expect that ‘can’t grow pains’ will be worse than ‘growing pains.’ Perhaps some of the unrest we have seen of late may have been caused by the mordant effects of natural population control mechanisms.
…fossil fuels are a limited resource, and therefore Peak Oil (a maximum peak in production) is a foregone conclusion carved in stone. The only controversy, is the timing of Peak Oil – over which there is much debate.
This is simply incorrect. The percentage of the Earth where we have searched for oil is very low. The more we look, the more we find. And that does not take into account shale, which as someone mentioned above is a game-changer.
Steve from Rockwood says (in response to comments on mine): ” I do not subscribe to the catastrophic theories either. But immigration will become more difficult as rich countries struggle to stay out of recession”.
This, Steve, mixes short and long term analyses. A recession slows down immigration, and may also send some immigrants back home (voluntarily or not). The subsequent recovery would attract them back. But here we are discussing long term issues. As most developed countries (especially in Europe) have intrinsic fertility rates way below replacement, and ageing fast, they will require additional manpower from abroad. They may come from Eastern Europe, or from elsewhere (Africa, Middle East, Latin America, Asia), but they will come because they are needed. As the supply of skilled labor increases in those places, they will fit ever more easily into Western labor markets. Of course this trend will encounter resistance (immigration restrictions, etc.) but ultimately economic forces would prevail, as they usually do.
On the other hand, a real force that may somewhat slow down emigration is the creation of jobs in the countries of origin, which is already happening: many workers in South Asia or in some other places are kept home just because they are working in growing industries (many of them for export), from textile manufacturing to software programming to call centers. However, I doubt job creation would cancel emigration: poorer countries would still have a negative net migration rate anyway, sending a flow of labor to the developed world, even if lower than they would have in the absence of new jobs in their own country.
Spector, you loon. Population will self-limit at under 8 bn by 2030 or so, per the always-accurate lowest bound of the UN’s Population projections.
You really are trying to prove the truth of Mencken’s jibe:
Antidote to Alarmism:
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-post-obama-renaissance/?singlepage=true
The benefits of a potent Reality Check.
Is it really surprising that oil production peaked when cheap natural gas became available? With coal a fraction of the cost of oil for the equivalent energy, is it any surprise that coal use has doubled while oil has remained flat?
While the supply of cheap oil is decreasing, the world has no shortage of expensive oil. What has peaked is the supply of buyer for expensive oil. They are switching to less expensive
alternatives.
Electric cars, solar and wind energy are not cheaper alternatives if the subsidies increase taxes and power bills. The money spent on subsidies has a cost. It reflects roads that can’t be repaired, schools that must be closed, houses that can’t be heated, jobs that move overseas, pensions plans that go broke . Over time the global economy will defeat any nation that goes this route.
jrwakefield says:
October 8, 2011 at 8:50 am
Peak oil is a physical fact. Don’t confuse geological peak, which we are no where near, and flow rate peak. The latter is what peak oil refers to, always has. Flow rates peaked in 2005.
Don’t confuse an ‘economic peak’ with physical or flow rate peaks.
40 years ago oil was the ‘fuel of choice’ for powering transportation, heating our homes and businesses and generating electricity.
We’ve been phasing out the use of oil for electricity and heating for 40 years because the economic said it was the thing to do. The efficiency of our transportation has also increased because the economics say’s it is cheaper to pay for efficiency then it is for the oil.
That’s the beautiful thing about a ‘free market’…the price of one good rises and a substitute good fills its place. It’s been a long time since dentists used gold fillings. There is still plenty of gold to be mined at a price.
Hector M. says:
October 8, 2011 at 2:12 pm
————————————–
Hector, I agree with your analysis, although I wasn’t thinking of a typical 2-3 quarter recession (the short term). The dynamics that should lead to higher immigration will also serve to limit the growth of those same countries (lower birth rate, ageing population etc). While a longer term recession is not predictable, a slow growing world economy should be expected in EU countries and North America as a growing older population moves from consumption to savings. These are the very countries expected to shoulder the bulk of immigration. So I don’t see much obvious upside to countries that are not able to grow through commodity export without a magic wand. The countries that are growing rapidly (China and India for example) don’t strike me as immigration friendly.
The bulk of immigrants into developed countries will be unskilled and cheap labour. This will take some pressure off the countries they emigrate from but it won’t naturally raise the standard of living in these countries. Somehow, without the advantage of oil or other commodities they are expected to grow richer, raising the money needed to pay for the increasing imports of food. As you note, the birth rates are coming down, but they are still above replacement rates so the populations are still all increasing.
I could feed my family from a garden in the backyard. At the moment I prefer to work in a University and buy my food. But perhaps I should haul out the cultivator, dig up the back lawn, and start planting.