Guest post by Indur M. Goklany
Analyses of policies related to fossil fuel usage usually focus on the negative impacts from that usage, while generally ignoring the positive aspects, such as their contribution to global food production and, through that, the alleviation of hunger which, it should be noted, is the first step to maintaining a healthy and productive population. Fossil fuels, however, are critical for food production worldwide. They contribute to food production via a number of pathways:
-
They serve as raw materials for the production of fertilizers and pesticides, without which yields would be substantially lower.
-
They provide most of the energy needed to move agricultural inputs (including water) and agricultural outputs to and from farms, markets and consumers.
-
Fossil fuels also provide the energy for running farm machinery.
-
They have helped increase atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, which increases the rate of photosynthesis and water use efficiency in crops (and other vegetation).
-
Much of the decrease in post-harvest losses, from farm to eventual consumption, also depends on fossil fuel powered technologies (e.g., refrigeration, storage in plastic products, and more rapid delivery systems).
Here I will develop a lower bound estimate of the contribution of fossil fuels to global food production. Specifically, I will address nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides, that is, only the first of the five pathways identified above by which fossil fuels enhance food supplies. Consequently, considering only this pathway would understate the contribution of fossil fuels to global food production.
Also since fossil fuels help increase agricultural yields, that limits the amount of habitat converted to cropland. Notably, such conversion is generally regarded to be the greatest threat to ecosystems and biodiversity worldwide (Wilcove et al., 1998; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Therefore higher yields imply higher habitat conservation (Goklany 1998). Here, I will also provide a lower bound estimate the amount of land that has been “saved” from being converted to cropland.
Contribution of Nitrogen Fertilizers to Global Food Production:
Nitrogen, the fourth most abundant element in the human body, is critical for life on earth. It is an essential component of amino acids, proteins, RNA and DNA. Without it, plants would not grow and there would be no food.
It is also the most abundant gas in the atmosphere. However, plants are generally unable to directly use the nitrogen in the air for their growth. For that, nitrogen has to be “fixed” in the soil (or other growth medium) via either natural processes (e.g., through the action of various soil or aquatic bacteria) or synthetic processes. Generally, natural processes are unable to fix nitrogen in the amounts needed to feed humanity. This is why synthetic processes have to be used to fix nitrogen in the form of fertilizers which can then be used to grow crops.
Synthetic fixation of nitrogen is accomplished via the Haber-Bosch process. [Vaclav Smil, writing in Nature, called the Haber-Bosch process the most important invention of the twentieth century (firewalled). I agree. Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch—both Nobel Prizewinners before the Nobel Prize was devalued by the political shenanigans of the Norwegian committee awarding the Nobel Peace Prize—received Nobel Prizes in Chemistry (I believe) in 1918 and 1931, respectively.]
In this process, invented in 1908, hydrogen is first produced from natural gas, and then reacted with nitrogen from the air under very high temperature and pressure in the presence of a catalyst (generally iron). Because the hydrogen is derived from natural gas, and the need for high temperatures and pressures, the entire process is very energy-intensive. According to one estimate, 1% of world’s energy is used for this process.]
Erisman et al. (2008) estimate that in the 100 years since the invention of the Haber-Bosch process, that even as the global population has increased, the percentage of global food production dependent on nitrogen from the Haber-Bosch process has grown. By 2008, they estimate, it was responsible for 48 percent of global food production (see Figure 1). Thus, as they note, “the lives of around half of humanity are made possible by Haber–Bosch nitrogen.” Their estimate, which is generally consistent with earlier estimates (e.g., Smil 1999, Stewart et al. 2005), assumes that in the absence of the Haber-Bosch process, other substitute technologies would have boosted productivity by 20% between 1950 and 2000.
Figure : The percentage of the world’s population estimated to be fed through the Haber-Bosch process, 1908 to 2008 (indicated by the short dashed line, right axis). Trends in human population and nitrogen use throughout the twentieth century are also shown. The total world population is shown by the solid gray line (left axis). The estimate of the number of people that could be sustained without nitrogen from the Haber–Bosch process is shown by the long brown dashed line. The average fertilizer use per hectare of agricultural land (blue symbols) and per capita meat production (green symbols) is also shown. Source: Erisman et al. (2008).
Figure 1 shows that in the absence of the Haber-Bosch process, the world would have had enough food to feed only 3.5 billion people (out of a world population of 6.7 billion) in 2008. It would be even fewer if there were no fossil fuels.
This is because regardless of which substitute technologies are used they would more likely than not rely on energy to one degree or another: No substance can be extracted, moved, processed and distributed without an investment of energy. And in today’s world, energy is synonymous with fossil fuels for practical purposes. Currently, 81% of the world’s energy consumption is derived from fossil fuels (and 6% from nuclear). Consequently, the 48% estimate derived by Erisman et al. (2008) as the contribution of the Haber-Bosch process to world food production is a lower-bound estimate.
Contribution of Pesticides to Global Food Production
Oerke (2006), used data from 19 regions around the world for 2001–03 to estimate losses in five major food crops from the full gamut of pests: pathogens (fungi, chromista, bacteria), viruses, animal pests, and weeds. He estimates that in the absence of pesticides, 50–77 percent of the world’s wheat, rice, corn, potatoes and soybean crop would be lost to pests. Fortunately, pesticides have reduced these losses to 26–40 percent. But most pesticides are made from feedstock derived from petroleum, another fossil fuel.
If one assumes that the mid-point of the above ranges for actual and potential losses due to pests applies to global food production, then in the absence of any pesticides, yields would be 46% lower. However, one ought to expect that in the absence of fossil fuels, substitute pest control methods would be employed. In the following, I will assume that in the absence of fossil fuels, actual yields would be 10% lower, although that might be an overestimat
e. But it will serve the purpose of developing a lower-bound estimate of the contribution of fossil fuels to food production.
A Lower-Bound Estimate of the Contribution of Fossil Fuels to Global Food Production
Combining the lower bound estimates of the contribution of fossil fuels to food production via nitrogenous fertilizer and pesticides indicates that because of fossil fuels, food production increased by at least 114% in 2008. That is, in their absence, food production would have been at least 53% lower.
A Lower-Bound Estimate of the Contribution of Fossil Fuels to Habitat Conservation
The corollary to the above estimate is that, in the absence of fossil fuels, the world would have needed at least 114% more cropland in 2008 to produce the same amount of food as it actually produced with the help of fossil fuels. But, as noted, conversion of habitat to cropland is probably the primary threat to ecosystems and biodiversity worldwide.
The above estimate assumes that the new cropland is just as productive on average as current cropland. But this is doubtful, since the best cropland is likely to already be in use currently. This reinforces the fact that the 114% is a lower bound estimate.
Since today there are 1.53 billion hectares of cropland worldwide (FAOSTAT), we would need an additional 1.75 billion hectares to meet the present level of food demand. To put this number in context, in 2006, the World Resources Institute estimates that there were a total of 1.41 billion hectares set aside for full or partial protection of biodiversity. This includes areas set aside for strict protection to areas set aside for sustainable use of resources.
So it seems fossil fuels have preserved more land from being converted to human use than all the other preservation effort undertaken to date (despite Prince Charles and Richard Attenborough’s best efforts).
Summary
Just the contribution of fossil fuels to global food production would outweigh whatever damage that has been attributed to fossil fuels, whether it is from real pollutants (e.g., particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, etc.) or from hypothesized bogey-molecules such as carbon dioxide. That they have, moreover, also “saved” more habitat from conversion to agriculture is a bonus beyond compare.
So the war with fossil fuels would seem to be counterproductive.
References:
Erisman, J.W., Sutton, M.A., Galloway, J., Klimont, Z, and Winiwarte, W. 2008. How a century of ammonia synthesis changed the world. Nature Geoscience 1: 636–639.
Fogel, R.W. 1995. The Contribution of Improved Nutrition to the Decline of Mortality Rates in Europe and America. In: Simon, J.L. Ed. The State of Humanity. Cambridge, MA, Blackwell, 61–71.
Goklany, I.M. 1998. Saving Habitat and Conserving Biodiversity on a Crowded Planet. BioScience 48: 941-953.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MEA]. 2005. Synthesis Report. Washington, DC, Island Press.
Oerke, E.-C. 2006. Centenary Review: Crop Losses to Pests. Journal of Agricultural Science 144: 31–43.
Smil, V. 1999. Detonator of the population explosion. Nature 400: 415.
Stewart, W.M., Dibb, D.W., Johnston, A.E., and Smyth, T.J. 2005. The Contribution of Commercial Fertilizer Nutrients to Food Production. Agronomy Journal 97: 1–6.
Wilcove, D.S., Rothstein, D., Dubow, J., Phillips, A. and Losos, E. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. BioScience 48: 607–615.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Fossil fuels also saved the whale and the sea elephant from extinction.
(replacing lamp oil)
Rabe: Figure 1 is totally misleading.
Just because you don’t understand the legend?
Out of interest, how much energy is used for (a) Feeding Humanity and (b) Habitat Conservation?
oil equivalent numbers would be good.
I agree there are many important, even critical benefits to fossil fuels. I think we should be using the fossil fuels we have and think the liberal and/or treehugger positions are largely ridiculous.
That said the position and point made only accentuate the importance of alternative energy sources. We may one day find out we have an unending supply of fossil fuels but I seriously doubt that. We DO have I think more than many believe. The amount though IS finite, and with as important as this essay shows fossil fuels are we have to rationally pursue real alternative energy sources and look at realistic conservation measures to prolong depletion of the finite supply.
Today we are perversely taught to hate fertilizers, electricity and pesticides, while thanks to them we are fed and well kept. Such enviroarguments at the end end up claiming “too much mankind”. Just instead of gas chambers they prefer sterilizations, starvation or cold – and they claim they care about humanity.
Excellent post, Idur Goklany. You have concisely highlighted the true benefits of Fossil Fuels usage!
I agree with a comment earlier about keeping certain sections of the population away from access to energy. We all know poverty increases populations, not wealth. Wealthy nations’ popuations do not rise significantly over time, esepcially with sesnible & logical immigration policies. It is the West, to who the world’s populations should be thankful for all the great discoveries & inventions in the world, that have got us to where we are. Not this ridiculous hair-shirted shinannigans by obsessive-compulsive suffering Socialists trying to enforce their backward thinking control measures upon us all. Just look at the mess Europe is in as a result of all that excessive control, the enrichment of bureaucrats & the impoverishment of the majority, the super-wealthy always seem to be able to take care of themselves!
I liked the article, but would prefer it not to have asides at various things that make you feel it is a polemic rather than a reasoned article. No need to be contemptuous of the Nobel Committee giving Peace Awards and certainly no need to impugne Richard Attenborough (for his Oscar winning Ghandi? or was The Chorus Line so bad?). I think you are referring to his brother David Attenborough! His Frozen Planet series ended this weekend with a paen to warn about Climate Change. However, it was more muted than you might expect with no disaster scenaria without the caveat of “maybe” or “not likely” which is unusual for these days at the BBC.
Indur
A good paper but you underestimate the need for fossil fuels. I have worked as an agricultural scientists in many areas of the World, including several years in Africa during the “green revolution” of the 1960’s when we produced research results showing that cereal yields can be increased by up to 30 fold through the use of fertilizers and agro chemicals allied with good cultivation and soil conservation techniques: that this has not happened is as much due to lack of land ownership as poor agronomic practices.
Soil conservation and cultivation are the most important aspects of dry land farming areas to prevent soil erosion and conserve water that it otherwise lost as well as to plant crops to catch the rains, but this requires the use of heavy machinery – tractors,bulldozers, graders etc – to create terraces and these require large amounts of diesel. A major problem in Africa is the lack of winter feed for cattle that are then too weak to plough in Spring so they plough down hill causing erosion but by first waiting for grass to feed the oxen and get them in any condition to do so they miss the rains for planted crops. This takes land out of production and enhances water loss.
Equally, in most of these countries the roads are dirt and need constant grading and repair that also need more heavy equipment otherwise food never gets to market.or even to storage points but rots in the field. And for meat products there is a need for refrigeration in distribution and storage. With higher proportions of populations in underdeveloped and developing countries living in urban centers this is an important point, as as shown in the Soviet Union – that equally demonstrated the “benefits” of relying on the peasant agriculture that Greens wish to impose. A final point is that in the NH we have been lucky in recent years to have warm weather that has reduced the fuel costs of drying grains after harvest but with solar activity at a low we can expect this to change with wetter harvest times and a higher need for fuel for grain dryers. There are other points, such as the need for fuel to produce manufactured foods for an increased working population and Middle Class but these will suffice to make my point and support yours.
Excellent post.
It is also obvious to me, though not those at Durban, that if the West is starved of fossil fuels through the stupid carbon tax they will be unable to pay all the monies claimed by the developing nations. it is only energy that brings the riches to help the developing nations, though not the absurd sums claimed.
Relying on renewables is a massive misallocation of resources which leaves humanity less well off right at the get-go, too. In fact, start to finish, they cause harm and waste.
“Consuming all natural methane in the next 50 years for energy production, as we are on target to do is a waste of a critical resource in light of the fact that standing energy use can be supplied from renewable resources.”
Maybe, probably not! Google, The shale gas shock Mark Ridley Forward by Freeman Dyson
Rabe, the right axis with % pertains to the percentage of population fed by the method discussed.
Rabe says:
December 12, 2011 at 12:01 am
Have you actually read the legends for the different lines, I suggest you do.
Paper vs. plastic: Both kinds of bags have their uses, but paper is much easier to reuse. Our paper bags take metal and glass recyclables to the dump, are emptied there, and are taken back home to be used for that purpose again and again. Some paper bags are filled with newspaper, which is also recycled. No simple waste there. Plastic grocery bags are far too small and porous for recycling purposes (i.e., for taking recyclables to the dump), but can themselves be recycled. Sometimes we prefer plastic bags because we can take several of them into the house at once; sometimes we prefer paper bags because they can aid in recycling, as already stated. Both types of bags are useful in initial application, and both can be recycled.
Indur M. Goklany: Great report. This should have been read/distributed to the delegates at Durban. But I’m sure that those delegates were more interested in ensuring their flight and hotel booking for their next COP 18 holiday, than in science. Science? Did anyone mention science in Durban?
George gets it …
Is it possible that you’re conflating Richard Attenborough (actor, director) with his brother David (nature documentary maker, former controller of BBC2 TV channel)?
RE: kurt says: (December 11, 2011 at 8:27 pm)
“Absolutely true. Your post also shows why it is important for us to save these where possible Ny using alternative energy so as to preserve this important resource for future generations.”
Preservation of a given resource for future generations seems to assume a small finite number of generations. There should be 40 generations in the next 1000 years. It seems reasonable to assume that all economically recoverable carbon deposits will be exhausted by then. Only nuclear energy from thorium and perhaps uranium remain as possible replacements. If these prove impractical for one reason or another, then it seems likely that the world would eventually face a painful period of population regression back to levels extant before 1900.
kurt says:
December 11, 2011 at 8:27 pm
“Absolutely true. Your post also shows why it is important for us to save these where possible Ny using alternative energy so as to preserve this important resource for future generations.”
Yes but you aren’t going to convince people to conserve fossil fuels by lying to them about why they should. You also aren’t going to pay for the R&D to find alternative energy sources by crippling the economies of the western nations which produce all the technological innovations.
Fossil fuels have lifted humans out of darkness, squalor and ignorance.
They have ended backbreaking labor, made it possible for women to get of the kitchen and made modern civilization possible.
No wonder they are so hated.
Spector says:
December 12, 2011 at 4:17 am
“Preservation of a given resource for future generations seems to assume a small finite number of generations. There should be 40 generations in the next 1000 years. It seems reasonable to assume that all economically recoverable carbon deposits will be exhausted by then. Only nuclear energy from thorium and perhaps uranium remain as possible replacements. If these prove impractical for one reason or another, then it seems likely that the world would eventually face a painful period of population regression back to levels extant before 1900.”
Well then we’re screwed because there just aren’t any materials that can simultaneously withstand the corrosion from molten salts and embrittlement by high neutron flux long enough to make a thorium reactor reach economic break-even. You have a constant costly maintenance program of shutting down for inspections and replacement of pumps and plumbing. This same need is what makes conventional nuclear plants twice as expensive as natural gas at providing steam for turbines. And in conventional nuclear plants it’s only embrittlement that’s the problem.
Fortunately nuclear power is not the last resort. There is abundant cheap clean energy coming from the sun. It is already being harvested by self-maintaining, self-repairing, self-reproducing things called green plants. All that’s left for us to do is adapt the technology nature gave to us on a silver platter to produce liquid and gaseous hydrocarbon fuels as a primary product of metabolism rather than as an undesireable by-product. Mutation and natural selection, you see, only selects things that are important for survival. Diesel-equivalent fuel oil naturally produced by some strains of cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) is a by-product of their metabolism and mutations that produce it in greater amounts create a competitive disadvantage so it is limited. Humans can now “mutate” these organisms and provide them with artificial environments where the over-production of fuel-oil is not a competitive disadvantage.
This is the future of energy production. Cheap, plentiful hydrocarbon fuels that are a drop-in, no modification required replacement for fossil fuels. No other alternative energy scenario is both practical and acheivable with current technology. Anyone who believes otherwise either hasn’t done their homework or has some vested short-term interest in one of the impractical alternatives.
Even better, hydrocarbon fuel production is just the tip of the iceberg in what can be produced at almost no cost through synthetic biology. There’s no technological reason why a vial of bacteria can’t be used to innoculate the ground where you want a house built and the bacteria will multiply into the trillions of trillions and programatically build a house out local materials (carbon, calcium, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc.) using energy from the sun for motive power. If a maple tree can grow from a maple seed then in principle it can be directed to build anything at all out of wood. If a snail egg can hatch and produce a home made of calcium then it could be directed to make toilets and sinks and floor tiles out of calcuim. You see where this is going? Once you have the ability to cut & paste the natural abilities of biologic entities and direct it to do your bidding then the world becomes your oyster (so to speak).
This technology is real, proven in concept by nature herself, and imminent. Synthetic biology is advancing at breakneck speed reminiscent of the rapid advances in semi-conductor technology.
Mike Bromley the Kurd says:
December 11, 2011 at 8:12 pm
“I’m expecting some mighty fine counter-arguments from the usual trolls on this one.”
No – you won’t see very many trolls here because they are, at this very moment, consuming energy produced by fossil fuels (to keep themselves warm if they live in cold climates) and, no doubt, using petroleum-based products. I have implored them to stop using ANY fossil fuels or petroleum based products, but there is usually little or no response — meaning, of course, that they are, in fact, hypocritically using fossil fuel energy and petroleum products, while at the same time protesting the XL pipeline and scolding the rest of society for not being “carbon neutral”.
TROLLS – WHERE ARE YOU???
Another essential compound needed for food production is phosphate. Nitrogen fertilizer alone will become less and less effective if no phosphate is added. Virtually all phosphates in fertilizers are extracted from phosphorus / phosphate containing ore by a process requiring sulfuric acid. Where does the sulfuric acid come from? Produced from sulfur extracted out of fossil fuels.
Potassium is another important fertilizer component and is mined.
A. Scott says:
“The amount though IS finite, and with as important as this essay shows fossil fuels are we have to rationally pursue real alternative energy sources and look at realistic conservation measures to prolong depletion of the finite supply.”
Spector says:
“There should be 40 generations in the next 1000 years. It seems reasonable to assume that all economically recoverable carbon deposits will be exhausted by then.”
As Mr. Wingo pointed out in his excellent post:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/10/the-true-failure-of-durban/
The Earth is not our only resource.
At some point in the future we could be mining hydrocarbons from Titan’s methane/ethane lakes:
“These lakes, individually, have enough methane/ethane energy to fuel the whole of the US for 300 years.”
http://www.universetoday.com/12800/titan-has-hundreds-of-times-more-liquid-hydrocarbons-than-earth/
or comets:
http://ascelibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/ascecp/207/41774/107_1?isAuthorized=no
Tom Curtis says:
December 11, 2011 at 10:14 pm
Having no reason to dispute Indur Goklany’s figures, figures, I won’t.
I will, however, point out that this makes fossil fuels a critical resource in the near term for the well being of the human race. Consuming all natural methane in the next 50 years for energy production, as we are on target to do is a waste of a critical resource in light of the fact that standing energy use can be supplied from renewable resources.
Which renewable resource(s) in particular do you imagine are viable replacements for fossil fuels? They all appear to have multiple problems, including high cost, environmental damage, decreased food availability, and even requiring more energy (thus, more of the dreaded C02 monster) to produce than they supply.
Perhaps I missed one magic bullet, though.