The term "green" has undergone an overhaul in the past several decades, as the topic of "climate change" was brought to the forefront of global attention. But the world is ignoring the simple fact that we will run out of oil before highly detrimental climate-related events will occur. Then, we won't be worrying about saving the environment, but about FOOD. Oil and food, as of now, are inherently connected, and this interdependency puts the globe at great risk. But why?
The fact is, most of the great powers in the world today use Nitrogenous-Based fertilizers to aide in farming, because using these fertilizers greatly increases the output of food in the area. "Fertilizer-N efficiency on corn in the US has increased more than 30% over the last 20 years..." state Paul E. Fixen and Ford B. West. But, to produce these fertilizers, a massive amount of fuel is required. Lets take one kilogram of fertilizer. To produce this, 1.4-1.8 liters of diesel fuel must be used. "Using the low figure of 1.4 liters diesel equivalent per kilogram of nitrogen, this equates to the energy content of 15.3 billion liters of diesel fuel, or 96.2 million barrels" states Dale Allen Pfeiffer in his article Eating Fossil Fuels. If this is the amount of fuel required to make 1 kilogram of fertilizer, the world is going to run out of oil quite fast if the human population keeps increasing at the rate it currently is. If the human population could be 9.2 billion by 2050, oil will be scarce. By the same token, food production will drop quickly, and, due to increasing food prices from this drop, inhabitants of poorer countries will begin to starve. These are the facts. But what can be done?
First and foremost, people need to STOP HAVING BABIES!!! If the population stops rapidly increasing, it will allow humanity to have some breathing space, and have valuable time to experiment with other fertilizers. If the population can be cut back to five billion at most, great forward progress will have been achieved.
Second, a complete overhaul of the world's energy system must occur, to free up valuable oil for Fertilizer production. This would be most effective if nuclear power was used, but any means of power production that does not involve oil will help.
Third, a new fertilizer production method must be found. Whatever the effort, an alternative must be found. Otherwise, all of these measures will be for nothing, and mass starvation will, inevitably, set in.
Humanity is in a race against time. If these measures are not implemented quickly, human civilization in this modern time faces destruction.
"First and foremost, people need to STOP HAVING BABIES!!! If the population stops rapidly increasing, it will allow humanity to have some breathing space, and have valuable time to experiment with other fertilizers."
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry but I slightly disagree with this little blurb. Its saying, we can have more food and feed more people if we activate population control and eliminate 20% of the world's population in the next 20 years.... counter intuitive?
S. Kim,
ReplyDeleteIt's not counter intuitive because with less people and the same amount of food, you will in fact have more food per capita. With more food per capita, we will be able to feed more people.
Regards,
Rohan
How is this counter-intuitive? As Rohan stated, with less people and the same amount of food, we will be able to effectively feed more people. You must have misinterpreted my statement.
ReplyDeleteHarry
Understandably that is the case, however wouldn't we have a very high food capital if we only had 100 people in the world? Yet, hopefully I hope that is not what the world is coming to. I think we should focus on more efficient use of land and food distribution to feed more with more food instead of feeding less with the same food.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. Physical labor is not highly necessary in food production. Thus, we can maintain the same number of farms with a smaller population. But this is not viable, because decreasing population will not help if we keep using the same amount of fertilizer. So, we need to decrease our population to prolong the amount of time we have fertilizer. If we try to feed more people with more or the same amount of food, we will run out of oil, thus we will run out of fertilizer, faster. And if we hit that wall with a large population and without another means to fertilize soil effectively so that it will produce more, there will be mass starvation. Have you ever seen The Book of Eli? Thats what the world will come to if we try using your method.
ReplyDeleteHarry
Harry, I think you are over-estimating the importance of oil-based fertilizers. Nitrogen is not an exclusive by-product of oil. We could easily harness the vast nitrogen stores of sewage if oil-based fertilizers became financially nonviable, and that is just one example.
ReplyDeleteYour Book of Eli prediction is pretty witless. Every generation has thought that they were going to destroy the world. Unless Democrats implement some idiotic scheme run by their revered Ivy-League masterminds, this is what is going to happen [with political context for your convenience]:
Most conservatives subscribe to the "cornucopia" model of wealth where the ultimate resource is people, and their ingenuity can solve all problems of scarcity: when there is scarcity prices will rise. These higher prices prompt the search for solutions, which, when found, leave us better off than if the problems had never occurred, because prices will be lower and quality will be higher. By comparison, many Democrats subscribe to the “Malthusian catastrophe” theory, where earth’s resources are finite and will eventually run out.
If you look at history, you will see that the catastrophe theory makes the false assumption that we are limited to present technology. It disregards human ingenuity, which should be at the center of the debate. The only thing we must fear is a left-wing government trying to solve our problems. But history is socially constructed anyway according to leftist thought, so its lessons should be no impediment to their grand, and conveniently never quite finished, project utopia.
I agree that catastrophe theories omit human ingenuity, but I feel that you are refusing to acknowledge that fact that there is a problem, not dealing with it, and using human ingenuity as an excuse. I do believe that solutions will be prompted when this issue strikes in full force, but I feel that it is more beneficial to deal with this issue now than to push it off to tomorrow. And even though humanity will survive, due to human quick thinking and innovation, the said innovation will not occur fast enough to prevent mass starvation in a very short period of time.
ReplyDeleteYes, the "vast nitrogen stores" will be accessed by other means than oil due to, as stated human innovation, but there still remains the question of time. This innovation will not occur quickly enough to save a majority of the human population. I also feel that you are underestimating the basis of oil based fertilizers. That, I feel, is where our major food production is based.
Finally, you stated my Book of Eli prediction is witless, and, I quote, "Every generation has thought that they were going to destroy the world." This argument can be made, but it disregards the fact that the current generation has the most chance to do so. Yes, there were Nuclear weapons that were widespread from about the middle of the last century onwards, but back then, Mutually Assured Destruction still applied. Now, It may just be me, but Nuclear Weapons - Mutually Assured Destruction + Rising Food Prices + A Growing Population, heavily in countries willing to use the said Weapons could very easily equal, if human innovation is too slow, The Book of Eli. Every generation has thought they were going to destroy the world, but this one has the greatest means to do so.
Harry
Sorry about posting as anonymous, my computer was acting strangely.
ReplyDeleteI will give a lengthy response later, but remember that we are growing more and more food on less and less land. The problem is by no means one of running out of space. Once we run out of highly efficient oil-based fertilizers, we can expand the amount of land we use for agriculture if we do not find a suitable substitute quickly enough. But I assure you, as suitable substitute will eventually get here, and there's no incentive as strong as need. You're building a straw man when you bring up nuclear weapons, I do not argue that we will not have problems. I think that giving aid to Africa is a terrible idea for two reasons. The first is that I believe that the difference between good and bad people is that good people figure out how to solve their problems, and by not letting them tackle their own problems we are holding them back. The second is that by giving them free food their population will continue to grow despite its inability to ever support itself. But it's too late to stop now, because as soon as you start helping people you create a dependancy that is very difficult to end.
ReplyDeleteFree food is not what I am advocating in this article. I also agree that we have created a dependency complex in Africa that has set us back. But am not as confident as you in Human Innovation working problems out smoothly. If we do nothing until this occurs, then I sincerely hope that you are right, and that the individuals currently living in North Korea will collaborate with us, see sense, and innovate in the same way. I sincerely hope so,
ReplyDeleteAnd what do you mean, by a straw man?
Harry
If you're worried about starving North Koreans nuking us, that's another question. I don't know enough on the subject to have that conversation.
ReplyDeleteEven if human innovation works out problems smoothly (which I assure you it will), we always have more land to fall back on. A lot more land.
Google "straw man" for your answer.
You are also forgetting our need for another substance to replace oil. Biofules currently seem to be a viable option. If "human innovation" is left to run its curse, and this crisis hits, as it will, in a very near period in the future, then one of the options we will have to fall back on is Biofules. This then takes away a lot of our currently available arable land. You are also forgetting to factor in population growth to your extra land thesis. If populaiton continues to grow as it does, and, with oil-based fertilizers holding up, it will, then by 2030, each human could have .8 acres of land. That is a severe limitation.
ReplyDeleteAnd are you willing to risk the lives of billions on the promise that humanity will still survive? That is what I get from your human innovation thesis. I feel that what you are saying is that, when this problem strikes us right in the face (which I assure you it will) someone will think some bright idea up after many wasted months of testing, during which, with unchecked population growth, Billions will starve, if population management and alternative nitrogen-extraction methods that are comparable to oil are not found a good deal before this occurs.
Harry
And are you advocating slash and burn farming in your whole organic theory? Because you must know that it is not a viable option
ReplyDeleteDon't emotionally overweight that first paragraph.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, I reread your article and found nuclear power.
Nuclear power is far more efficient than oil.
I win the land argument. If you think we are pressed for open space for agriculture in the US, you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that your wrong on your own. If that's what this has been boiled down to, I would not be too worried about a growing population being the source of our food problem.
But I do see a problem. What happens when half a billion middle-class Chinese people say, "Rice is nice, but steak is better." Now we can have a conversation.
Lets start with nuclear power.
ReplyDeleteNuclear power, as we have already stated, is the best way for humanity to generate energy that we need. But how long will it take to construct these reactors? By the time the majority of the United States has gotten over the nuclear scare, it will take too long for these reactors to be constructed. By that time, food production will be dropping sharply, and our infrastructure will begin to crumble. Answer: Start creating nuclear reactors now, not waiting for food loss to jar the American public awake.
Yeah, pricing will take care of that. Don't lose sleep over fertilizer. There are better things to worry about. Such as Iran.
ReplyDeleteOr Libya. But I will lose sleep over fertilizer/population control.
ReplyDeleteOr invest knowing that food prices are going to be skyrocketing globally.
ReplyDelete