Malthus Redux?
Back in March, I posed the question of whether the growth of a new middle class in the developing world was going to stress the world’s capacity to provide food and fuel. At that time Light crude (above) was selling for $85 a barrel and there were no food riots in Egypt, Pakistan, India, Thailand and Sudan. Yesterday, The New York Times weighed in on this question. They presented a balanced view on both sides of the story, concentrating more on the food issue than the fuel.
The whole world has never come close to outpacing its ability to produce food. Right now, there is enough grain grown on earth to feed 10 billion vegetarians, said Joel E. Cohen, professor of populations at Rockefeller University and the author of “How Many People Can the Earth Support?” But much of it is being fed to cattle, the S.U.V.’s of the protein world, which are in turn guzzled by the world’s wealthy.
This is all very comforting, but are we all going to turn into vegetarians? So they try another angle, which sounds more resonable: plant more land.
Anyone who has ever flown across the United States can see how that’s possible: there’s a lot of empty land down there. The world’s entire population, with 1,000 square feet of living space each, could fit into Texas. Pile people atop each other like Manhattanites, and they get even more elbow room.
Water? When it hits $150 a barrel, it will be worth building pipes from the melting polar icecaps, or desalinating the sea as the Saudis do.
On the other side of the issue are agronomists like Dr. Harriet Friedman who say our industrial food system is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Dr. Friedmann argues that there is a Malthusian unsustainability to the way big agriculture is practiced, that it degrades genetic diversity and the environment so much that it will eventually reach a tipping point and hunger will spread.
There are three part of the U.S. food business, I think we really need to look at. First we have to stop subsidizing our agriculture. By pouring billions into the pockets of Cargill and Archer Daniels, we distort the world price of Wheat, Corn, Soy, Rice and Cotton and we make it impossible for farmers in the developing world to compete or grow more than subsistence crops. Second, as the cost of oil rises, big industrial farming that needs lots of oil inputs not only for machinery but for fertilizers, will have less of an advantage over smaller scale organic farming, especially in the fruits and vegetables categories. Where I live, the local farmers markets, three times a week are very popular and clearly the value for what you pay is outstanding.
Finally, I think we really do need to look at the role commodity speculation is playing in price distortion. We have known of the developing world’s need for more food and fuel for years. Why did the chart above develop the hockey stick only in the last six months? Because as the stock market fell, there were $trillions looking for a new rising market and that market was commodities. The defenders of speculation say the huge new capital flows into the commodity markets are making them more liquid and therefore it is a plus for the airline that needs to hedge fuel prices or the farmer who needs to hedge corn prices. The problem is that as the dollar falls, most of this new money is flowing into the “buy-side” contracts of which there is a limited supply. Like any Econ 101 student, we know what happens in that situation. I think the solution is that if you are not willing to take possession of a commodity, you shouldn’t be able to play in the futures market.
Ultimately this whole issue is one of the most vexing ones we will face in the next half century. We clearly have a lot more land that could be planted to feed the world. As to oil, I think the Peak Oil theorists are right. For Americans, we are going to have to live a more frugal and less wasteful lifestyle. We have to raise the urgency of moving to alternative fuel sources like wind, solar, and even nuclear if we are to avoid a Malthusian doomsday scenario.
I think this goes to stewardship also. To reduce the waste of fuel, of food, of prime ag land, of soil fertilty, and frankly of heritage.
Thank you for explaining the hockey stick.
I think this goes to stewardship also. To reduce the waste of fuel, of food, of prime ag land, of soil fertilty, and frankly of heritage.
Thank you for explaining the hockey stick.
I find it disturbing that talks of sustainability rarely note that our world population is rising, and the more food we have on hand, likely the more it will rise. Isn’t it the nature of most species to grow to the limits of their resources?
A long-term solution to many of our environmental woes might be to reduce or eliminate population growth. Isn’t 7 billion people enough?
I find it disturbing that talks of sustainability rarely note that our world population is rising, and the more food we have on hand, likely the more it will rise. Isn’t it the nature of most species to grow to the limits of their resources?
A long-term solution to many of our environmental woes might be to reduce or eliminate population growth. Isn’t 7 billion people enough?
Probably.
Alas, the techniques we have come up with in the past for population control, both deliberate and accidental, have been less than pretty.
I’m all over wind and solar energy. Nuclear energy in the long run will, I think, prove to be one of those unpretty accidental methods of population control.
Probably.
Alas, the techniques we have come up with in the past for population control, both deliberate and accidental, have been less than pretty.
I’m all over wind and solar energy. Nuclear energy in the long run will, I think, prove to be one of those unpretty accidental methods of population control.
Somehow this brought to mind Jim Culleny’s Sunday poem at 3QD.
http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/2008/06/sunday-poem-2.html#more
Somehow this brought to mind Jim Culleny’s Sunday poem at 3QD.
http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/2008/06/sunday-poem-2.html#more
in re: speculators. I agree. If you place an order for 100,000 barrels of oil or a million bushels of wheat, you better have some place to put it, because it’s coming to your house. Soon.
in re: speculators. I agree. If you place an order for 100,000 barrels of oil or a million bushels of wheat, you better have some place to put it, because it’s coming to your house. Soon.
That’s an eloquent poem, A.J.; a lamentation, a pleading, a diatribe—all in one. Thanks for posting it. It’s a powerful companion to Jon’s thoughful essay.
That’s an eloquent poem, A.J.; a lamentation, a pleading, a diatribe—all in one. Thanks for posting it. It’s a powerful companion to Jon’s thoughful essay.
AJ-Thanks for the poem. Fantastic!
AJ-Thanks for the poem. Fantastic!
Shit happens
When you fuck with
Mother Nature
Shit happens
When you fuck with
Mother Nature
“This is all very comforting, but are we all going to turn into vegetarians?”
Nobody on the planet *needs* a 16oz steak. Or even 12oz. It’s obscene. But it’s something of a cultural right. I’m reminded of Jared Diamond’s stories of people becoming extinct because their culture prized certain unsustainable behaviors over common sense.
“By pouring billions into the pockets of Cargill and Archer Daniels, we distort the world price of Wheat, Corn, Soy, Rice and Cotton and we make it impossible for farmers in the developing world to compete or grow more than subsistence crops. ”
This is one of the great crimes of the past century. Western subsidies have bankrupted farmers all over the third world, and particularly in Africa. It’s not drawing too long a bow to say they’ve resulted in a lot of deaths, although obviously there are other factors at work too. But people who argue for the continuation of these subsidies are contributing to human misery.
The domestic political costs of being anti-subsidy are so great that no-one is courageous enough to call this what it is: manslaughter.
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/17/obama_farm_plan_limits_subsidi.php
Jon, I notice that Obama doesn’t have a particularly shiny record in this regard. He’s anti-corporate interests but wants to continue subsidising “the family farm”. Even if the US does turn away from Agribusiness, these subsidies (and their offensive European counterparts) will continue, and it’s probable that big business will restructure holdings to qualify for the mom and pop schemes through smaller corporate holdings. Any way one skins it, it will result in grain being dumped overseas as “aid”, and non-viable agriculture abroad.
I get very, very depressed about this. I can’t see a President from the midwest stepping up on this issue in any meaningful way, and Congress is too scared of the farming lobby to do anything at all.
What hope do we have for change?
“This is all very comforting, but are we all going to turn into vegetarians?”
Nobody on the planet *needs* a 16oz steak. Or even 12oz. It’s obscene. But it’s something of a cultural right. I’m reminded of Jared Diamond’s stories of people becoming extinct because their culture prized certain unsustainable behaviors over common sense.
“By pouring billions into the pockets of Cargill and Archer Daniels, we distort the world price of Wheat, Corn, Soy, Rice and Cotton and we make it impossible for farmers in the developing world to compete or grow more than subsistence crops. ”
This is one of the great crimes of the past century. Western subsidies have bankrupted farmers all over the third world, and particularly in Africa. It’s not drawing too long a bow to say they’ve resulted in a lot of deaths, although obviously there are other factors at work too. But people who argue for the continuation of these subsidies are contributing to human misery.
The domestic political costs of being anti-subsidy are so great that no-one is courageous enough to call this what it is: manslaughter.
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/17/obama_farm_plan_limits_subsidi.php
Jon, I notice that Obama doesn’t have a particularly shiny record in this regard. He’s anti-corporate interests but wants to continue subsidising “the family farm”. Even if the US does turn away from Agribusiness, these subsidies (and their offensive European counterparts) will continue, and it’s probable that big business will restructure holdings to qualify for the mom and pop schemes through smaller corporate holdings. Any way one skins it, it will result in grain being dumped overseas as “aid”, and non-viable agriculture abroad.
I get very, very depressed about this. I can’t see a President from the midwest stepping up on this issue in any meaningful way, and Congress is too scared of the farming lobby to do anything at all.
What hope do we have for change?
I don’t know. I just grilled up a nice 12-oz.—oh, check that; wrapper says 11-oz.—ribeye and my dog pretended like he was helping and the fireflies flew around the pit and around his nose and the Atlanta humidity was givien us a break, and we were in the backyard, so we hadn’t any Columbia sophomores (or presidents) or other gaiamystical schoolmarms to spank us with their evolved metaphysics, so all in all it was a fine evening. For a Monday.
The rest of you of course have no hope. No hope at all for change.
I don’t know. I just grilled up a nice 12-oz.—oh, check that; wrapper says 11-oz.—ribeye and my dog pretended like he was helping and the fireflies flew around the pit and around his nose and the Atlanta humidity was givien us a break, and we were in the backyard, so we hadn’t any Columbia sophomores (or presidents) or other gaiamystical schoolmarms to spank us with their evolved metaphysics, so all in all it was a fine evening. For a Monday.
The rest of you of course have no hope. No hope at all for change.
Hey Hugo-Lay off the Beaujolais.
It’s better for your heart that you eat less of the ribeye. I hope you at least shared the gristle with Rover.
But I must admit, I liked your evening poetry. Your rhythm is getting better.
As for hope, we are so filled with it that it feels like being in a time machine going back 40 years to March in 1968 when Martin Luther King was moving beyond Civil Rights to unite the Peace Movement and Bobby Kennedy announced he was running for President. We have to pray Obama will survive like JFK, MLK and RFK could not. If he can I just feel this country can be so much larger of heart than it has been. It can be so much more innovative in energy, education and lots of other Gaia like projects
Hey Hugo-Lay off the Beaujolais.
It’s better for your heart that you eat less of the ribeye. I hope you at least shared the gristle with Rover.
But I must admit, I liked your evening poetry. Your rhythm is getting better.
As for hope, we are so filled with it that it feels like being in a time machine going back 40 years to March in 1968 when Martin Luther King was moving beyond Civil Rights to unite the Peace Movement and Bobby Kennedy announced he was running for President. We have to pray Obama will survive like JFK, MLK and RFK could not. If he can I just feel this country can be so much larger of heart than it has been. It can be so much more innovative in energy, education and lots of other Gaia like projects
Woo, that sounded very self-righteous of me, sorry Hugo.
You paint a lovely picture. Pass the salad please
Woo, that sounded very self-righteous of me, sorry Hugo.
You paint a lovely picture. Pass the salad please
We want you to have hope, man. There, in California. You’re our repository of hope. Without you, we’ll have to turn to to the Aussies, and they’re—you know—unpredictable.
I just don’t see this funnel thing, from the acronymical figures of the ’60s into this Barry guy I faintly remember from college. I like the guy’s moves, but so what?
As for the Gaiasupercalifragilistic bullshit, yes, absolutely. The U. S. of A has to stop talking about getting on this job and absolutely, wholeheartedly Get On This Job.
What do you think, Jon? Should the respective candidates be looking to pick running mates who stand out for their ability to tackle that exact job? Seriously. Has it come to that?
If so, good.
Beaujolais. Sombuzzard. I remember when I quit drinking I wondered what I’d miss the more, the Beaujolais or the California Chards. My little stupid heart was kind of broken for a few months over that particular fatuity…
They don’t know from Shinola on education, and you know it and I know it and Bob Dole and the ‘Markin People know it. They’re not smart enough to wrap their stupid power-starved brains around a really complex system, such as healthcare, education, defense.
They’re too busy being, whatever.
We want you to have hope, man. There, in California. You’re our repository of hope. Without you, we’ll have to turn to to the Aussies, and they’re—you know—unpredictable.
I just don’t see this funnel thing, from the acronymical figures of the ’60s into this Barry guy I faintly remember from college. I like the guy’s moves, but so what?
As for the Gaiasupercalifragilistic bullshit, yes, absolutely. The U. S. of A has to stop talking about getting on this job and absolutely, wholeheartedly Get On This Job.
What do you think, Jon? Should the respective candidates be looking to pick running mates who stand out for their ability to tackle that exact job? Seriously. Has it come to that?
If so, good.
Beaujolais. Sombuzzard. I remember when I quit drinking I wondered what I’d miss the more, the Beaujolais or the California Chards. My little stupid heart was kind of broken for a few months over that particular fatuity…
They don’t know from Shinola on education, and you know it and I know it and Bob Dole and the ‘Markin People know it. They’re not smart enough to wrap their stupid power-starved brains around a really complex system, such as healthcare, education, defense.
They’re too busy being, whatever.
Rachel I was hoping to get away with posting that without insulting you unduly or really pissing you off.
Like Jon sez, blame it on the Beaujolais.
Rachel I was hoping to get away with posting that without insulting you unduly or really pissing you off.
Like Jon sez, blame it on the Beaujolais.
Fact check: you “gave up drinking” but you see fit to “blame if on the Beaujolais”? Hugo, Hugo, Hugo. I know “bugbear of little minds…” and all that, but within two adjacent posts??
Fact check: you “gave up drinking” but you see fit to “blame if on the Beaujolais”? Hugo, Hugo, Hugo. I know “bugbear of little minds…” and all that, but within two adjacent posts??
Ah Ken. Ken.
It’s poesy, man! Rachel surely understands that as beautiful a word as “Beaujolais” must not go underused.
Or have you RETICLES where our GRATICULES used to be, stealing PARTICLES of our Kissingerian IDENTITIES??!!!!!!
Like I say, the fashionably flagrant paranoia: where really does it end? And when? On Election Day?
Fine. WTF. You can have it. George Dubya’s been the “Napoleon of Crime” all along. Thank Gaia you all figured it out and saved us from it.
Otherwise we’d be stuck in our own…graticules, an’ all like ‘at.
Ken.
Ah Ken. Ken.
It’s poesy, man! Rachel surely understands that as beautiful a word as “Beaujolais” must not go underused.
Or have you RETICLES where our GRATICULES used to be, stealing PARTICLES of our Kissingerian IDENTITIES??!!!!!!
Like I say, the fashionably flagrant paranoia: where really does it end? And when? On Election Day?
Fine. WTF. You can have it. George Dubya’s been the “Napoleon of Crime” all along. Thank Gaia you all figured it out and saved us from it.
Otherwise we’d be stuck in our own…graticules, an’ all like ‘at.
Ken.
I hate to steer the conversation away from beaujolais (which rhymes afterall with “election day” — coincidence?), but given that food is the most basic element of human existence, it bears the attention.
My first issue with the idea that agribusiness is the answer is one of historical reflection: how are the westerners trying to set up enormous industrial farms in the developing world not thinking about the disasterous banana republics of the past? When did we forget the failures of colonialism?
I hate to steer the conversation away from beaujolais (which rhymes afterall with “election day” — coincidence?), but given that food is the most basic element of human existence, it bears the attention.
My first issue with the idea that agribusiness is the answer is one of historical reflection: how are the westerners trying to set up enormous industrial farms in the developing world not thinking about the disasterous banana republics of the past? When did we forget the failures of colonialism?
Kate, a lot of them (I don’t know that; I should say, at least several of them) did have that very concern, dating pretty far back—at least to President Kennedy’s incumbency—and truly there’s quite a good deal of extremely thoughtful and even, I would say, prescient thinking lying dormant but recoverable from that time. The questions you’re asking: exactly those. (And BTW, our Yanqui model isn’t orthodox “colonialism”; it’s something else, but the difference scarcely matters, in this context…)
Kate, a lot of them (I don’t know that; I should say, at least several of them) did have that very concern, dating pretty far back—at least to President Kennedy’s incumbency—and truly there’s quite a good deal of extremely thoughtful and even, I would say, prescient thinking lying dormant but recoverable from that time. The questions you’re asking: exactly those. (And BTW, our Yanqui model isn’t orthodox “colonialism”; it’s something else, but the difference scarcely matters, in this context…)