Neo-science and the elephant in the room

**Parihaka** · 11-24-2007, 03:50 AM

This is an occasional series, and is dedicated to all the neo-scientists around the world, whose warped political visions endanger us all. Feel free to contribute any of these evil little ****ers you find.

For my first in this series, I present mr Richard Heinberg.

Telegraph: Apocalyptic vision of a post-fossil fuel world

Quote:

By Paul Eccleston
Last Updated: 6:01pm GMT 22/11/2007

An apocalyptic vision of how the world will look after the oil runs out
has been given by a top scientist.

Richard Heinberg, one of the world's leading experts on oil reserves,
warned that the lives of billions of people were threatened by a food crisis
caused by our dependence on dwindling supplies of fossil fuels.

Higher oil prices, the loss of farmland to biofuel crops, climate change
and the loss of natural resources would combine with population growth to create
an unprecedented food shortage, he claimed.

The only way to avoid a world food crisis was a planned and rapid
reduction of fossil fuel use - oil, coal and gas - and a switch to more organic
methods in the growing and delivery of food. It would mean a return to living
off the land not seen for 150 years.

The stark predictions were made by Heinberg in a lecture to the Soil
Association in London.

Heinberg, an author and former advisor to the National Petroleum Council,
specialises in 'Peak Oil' - the point where oil production reaches its maximum
and begins to decline - and the implications it has for climate change and food
security.

He said for thousands of years, until the 19th century and the onset of
the Industrial Revolution, all food production had been local. In good years
there was enough to eat and to store and in bad years there was starvation.

The invention of the petrol engine increased the amount of arable land
available to grow food, the size and efficiency of farm machinery improved, and
better pesticides were developed - all of which contributed to a better food
supply.
As food became more plentiful and cheap, the threat of famine disappeared
and obesity became more widespread than hunger. Food, grain, meat and vegetables
began to be exported around the world and the world population increased
six-fold.

By the 1960s industrial-chemical practices had been exported to the third
world and in the next half century food production tripled - but at an
unrecognised cost of water and soil pollution and enormous environmental damage.

Heinberg said that, unfortunately, it was all unsustainable and the
abundance of food depended on depleting, non-renewable fossil fuels whose
burning produced climate-altering carbon dioxide.

The depletion of oil stocks, the demand for biofuels as an alternative,
environmental degradation and extreme weather caused by climate change, were
coming together to pose massive problems for world food production.

The situation would be made worse by a shortage of fresh drinking water.
According to UN estimates, one third of the world's population lived in areas
with water shortages and 1.1 billion people lack access to safe drinking water.
The situation was expected to worsen dramatically over the next few decades.

While the human population had tripled in the 20th century, the use of
renewable water resources had grown six-fold.

The UN Environment Program had concluded that the planet's water, land,
air, plants, animals and fish stocks were all in "inexorable decline" much of it
due to agriculture, which constituted the greatest single source of human impact
on the biosphere.

Heinberg said that to get to the heart of the crisis a comprehensive
transformation of world agriculture was needed - greater than anything seen in
many decades - which would produce a system that was not reliant on fossil
fuels.

He cited Cuba as an example of what could be achieved. In the 1980s it had
become reliant on cheap fuel supplied by Russia and was using more agrochemicals
per acre than even the US. But after the fall of communism, supplies dried up.
The average Cuban lost 20lbs in weight, living standards collapsed and
malnutrition became widespread.

Cuban authorities responded by redesigning the food supply system. Large
state-owned farms were broken up and given to families and they were encouraged
to form co-operatives, biological methods were used for pest control, oxen
replaced tractors, urban vegetable gardens flourished and people began to keep
chickens and rabbits for food. Twenty years later food production was 90 per
cent of its former levels.

Heinberg said what was needed was a return to ecological organic farming
methods which would require the transformation of societies.

And with oil supplies rapidly running out the full resources of national
governments would be needed to achieve it.

The amount of food transportation would have to be reduced, food would
need to be grown in and around cities, and producers and consumers would need to
live closer together.

The use of pesticides would have to be reduced in packaging and
processing, draft animals would be reintroduced and governments would have to
provide incentives for people to return to an agricultural life. Land reform
would be needed to enable smallholders and farming co-ops to work their own
plots and population growth would have to be curbed.

"All of this constitutes a gargantuan task, but the alternatives - doing
nothing or attempting to solve our food-production problems simply by applying
mere techno-fixes - will almost certainly lead to dire consequences," he said.

" All of the worrisome trends mentioned earlier would intensify to the
point that the human carrying capacity of Earth would be degraded significantly,
and perhaps to a large degree permanently."

Heinberg added: "The transition to a fossil-fuel-free food system does not
constitute a distant utopian proposal. It is an unavoidable, immediate, and
immense challenge that will call for unprecedented levels of creativity at all
levels of society.

"A hundred years from now, everyone will be eating what we today would
define as organic food, whether or not we act.

"But what we do now will determine how many will be eating, what state of
health will be enjoyed by those future generations, and whether they will live
in a ruined cinder of a world, or one that is in the process of being renewed
and replenished."

So what's this guys elephant?

gunnut · 11-24-2007, 04:39 AM

This guy is a hippie and wants nothing less than to live in a commune.

I am so sick and tired of people using the term "organic" to describe food. All food, by definition, is organic. Organic means carbon based. We sure as hell don't eat "inorganic" food because that will probably kill us.

Patch · 11-24-2007, 04:59 AM

Personally, I feel the article raises good points, although I agree with gunnut that the terminology is flawed, at least from a chemist's point of view. But then, I'm a conservation student with a smallholding and an interest in 17th century Britain, so perhaps that's unsurprising

glyn · 11-24-2007, 05:14 AM

Interesting. He states some obvious truths, omits others, but takes the gloomiest view he can. Lauding Cubas solution won't endear him to the Americans! This will put the wind up the tree huggers and be ignored by the majority.

**Parihaka** · 11-24-2007, 06:05 AM

My contention is that even with the fallacious comparison with Cuba, he's in reality talking a 30 or even 40% reduction in food production globally, and he knows this.
So which 30 or 40% of the population is he proposing euthanising, or would he just let market forces decide?

**Parihaka** · 11-24-2007, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glyn

This will put the wind up the tree huggers and be ignored by the majority.

I would believe this, but much the same proposals are already part of mainstream global warming theory. Taxing food production for carbon offsets in it's production will limit some production and raise the price considerably overall. That is the unspoken but known result of Kyoto et al: the poor will pay much more for what food is available.

gunnut · 11-24-2007, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

My contention is that even with the fallacious comparison with Cuba, he's in reality talking a 30 or even 40% reduction in food production globally, and he knows this.
So which 30 or 40% of the population is he proposing euthanising, or would he just let market forces decide?

I don't think that's what he had in mind.

He wants all of us to eat less, in a state of perpetual starvation like North Korea, if you will.

**Parihaka** · 11-24-2007, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

I don't think that's what he had in mind.

He wants all of us to eat less, in a state of perpetual starvation like North Korea, if you will.

But you, I, and I suspect he knows that in a market economy, that won't occur. the rich will still eat, it's the poor that won't.

Patch · 11-24-2007, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

My contention is that even with the fallacious comparison with Cuba, he's in reality talking a 30 or even 40% reduction in food production globally, and he knows this.

Parihaka, my curiosity is sparked and I've done a little reading around the subject. However, I can't find a reference to a 30-40% reduction. Could you tell me how this was derived?

Also, I'm not sure how the comparison to Cuba is fallacious. As far as I can tell (and I'm no expert) Cuba did indeed experience a crash in agricultural production following the loss of Soviet support, and has to a large extent rebuilt production using the methods outlined by Heinberg.

**Parihaka** · 11-24-2007, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patch

Parihaka, my curiosity is sparked and I've done a little reading around the subject. However, I can't find a reference to a 30-40% reduction. Could you tell me how this was derived?

Also, I'm not sure how the comparison to Cuba is fallacious. As far as I can tell (and I'm no expert) Cuba did indeed experience a crash in agricultural production following the loss of Soviet support, and has to a large extent rebuilt production using the methods outlined by Heinberg.

It's purely guesswork. Heinberg says "The invention of the petrol engine increased the amount of arable land available to grow food, the size and efficiency of farm machinery improved, and better pesticides were developed - all of which contributed to a better food supply."
and
"By the 1960s industrial-chemical practices had been exported to the third
world and in the next half century food production tripled - but at an
unrecognised cost of water and soil pollution and enormous environmental damage."
also
"According to UN estimates, one third of the world's population lived in areas
with water shortages and 1.1 billion people lack access to safe drinking water.
The situation was expected to worsen dramatically over the next few decades."

So, I consider a thirty percent reduction in food production by removing modern farming practices, farm machinery, and no effective bulk transportation as a conservative estimate.

The reason I consider Cuba a fallacious example is that it is a tropical area that can supply it's own needs easily even with a basic infrastructure. Any of the water deprived areas that cannot supply its own population without modern agricultural methods will in no way be able to support its own people with a nineteenth century agricultural model, nor will the current major food exporters be able to supply because they will 1: not be able in this model to export that food, 2: be unable to produce anywhere near their current levels, or 3: the price will be so prohibitive as to make it unaffordable.

Another example is England, current population 60 million. What is the ratio of people required to work the land in a nineteenth century model, how much land will be viable for agriculture and what is the ratio of people to viable farming area?
But lets take his example of Cuba. Even under his scenario, there's a 10 percent drop in production in what is an ideal 3 crop per annum agricultural area. If we ignore the vast areas of the world that are only possible to farm with modern methods and simply claim a matching 10% reduction, which 10% of the worlds population is going to be culled?

Patch · 11-24-2007, 09:03 AM

Good points, well made

I entirely agree that a return to pre-industrial agricultural practices is not a viable option on a global scale. However, I think it's equally evident that the current situation is not sustainable, and that on an individual scale, those who are able should increase their self-sufficiency.

The scenario Heinberg presents would definitely result in serious famine in those areas which have exceeded their carrying capacity. I don't agree with him that it is the only way forward, rather that it will be the consequence of failing to solve the problems facing us.

dalem · 11-24-2007, 14:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

This is an occasional series, and is dedicated to all the neo-scientists around the world, whose warped political visions endanger us all. Feel free to contribute any of these evil little ****ers you find.

For my first in this series, I present mr Richard Heinberg.

Telegraph: Apocalyptic vision of a post-fossil fuel world

So what's this guys elephant?

He's a dick?

But seriously, I'd say his elephant is his refusal to acknowlegde that wealthy and prosperous societies actually contribute fewer and fewer people to the cycle.

-dale

gunnut · 11-24-2007, 18:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

But you, I, and I suspect he knows that in a market economy, that won't occur. the rich will still eat, it's the poor that won't.

We are realists. We know how people work and how the market works.

He's a scholar. He probably lives on a college campus, gives a lecture every 3 days, and gets research grants. These people have no idea how the world works. They only know that theoretically the world should work in a certain way if you do certain things, ie social engineering. Except that people will find ways around it with black markets and reduced spending and diverting resources to other endevours.

I'm not certain if that's what he had in mind, but I would not be surprised if it is.

Blademaster · 11-26-2007, 02:52 AM

Organic means no use of preservatives and chemicals. It means use of natural ingredients and fertilizers. My sister in law is a big believer of organic food. She opened up a business creating a clothing line along the lines of organic clothing.

Don't ask me. Still, I love her to death as a sister.

gunnut · 11-26-2007, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Organic means no use of preservatives and chemicals. It means use of natural ingredients and fertilizers. My sister in law is a big believer of organic food. She opened up a business creating a clothing line along the lines of organic clothing.

Don't ask me. Still, I love her to death as a sister.

I understand what they hippies mean by "organic." I just can't stand it because I know what "organic" really means.

There was an article in my local paper talking about the man who coined the term "organic food." He was a big time hippie. He now lives in southern California and if I remember correctly, pushing for more nuclear power. He realized that the scaremongering tactics of the environmentalists back in the 70s really harmed us in the long term and wants to change it.

I can't remember his name for the life of me. It was one of those articles that's interesting to read and easy to forget.

11-24-2007, 04:39 AM	#2 (permalink)
gunnut *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-27-06 Location: DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 9,361 Country:	This guy is a hippie and wants nothing less than to live in a commune. I am so sick and tired of people using the term "organic" to describe food. All food, by definition, is organic. Organic means carbon based. We sure as hell don't eat "inorganic" food because that will probably kill us. __________________ "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

11-24-2007, 05:14 AM	#4 (permalink)
glyn *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-15-06 Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK Posts: 6,528	Interesting. He states some obvious truths, omits others, but takes the gloomiest view he can. Lauding Cubas solution won't endear him to the Americans! This will put the wind up the tree huggers and be ignored by the majority. __________________ Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-24-2007, 04:59 AM	#3 (permalink)
Patch Regular Join Date: 11-20-07 Location: Gloucestershire Posts: 54 Country:	Personally, I feel the article raises good points, although I agree with gunnut that the terminology is flawed, at least from a chemist's point of view. But then, I'm a conservation student with a smallholding and an interest in 17th century Britain, so perhaps that's unsurprising

11-24-2007, 06:05 AM	#5 (permalink)
Parihaka Moderator Join Date: 11-10-04 Location: Te Ika a Maui Posts: 9,462 Country:	My contention is that even with the fallacious comparison with Cuba, he's in reality talking a 30 or even 40% reduction in food production globally, and he knows this. So which 30 or 40% of the population is he proposing euthanising, or would he just let market forces decide?

11-24-2007, 09:03 AM	#11 (permalink)
Patch Regular Join Date: 11-20-07 Location: Gloucestershire Posts: 54 Country:	Good points, well made I entirely agree that a return to pre-industrial agricultural practices is not a viable option on a global scale. However, I think it's equally evident that the current situation is not sustainable, and that on an individual scale, those who are able should increase their self-sufficiency. The scenario Heinberg presents would definitely result in serious famine in those areas which have exceeded their carrying capacity. I don't agree with him that it is the only way forward, rather that it will be the consequence of failing to solve the problems facing us.

11-26-2007, 02:52 AM	#14 (permalink)
Blademaster Military Enthusiast *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-15-03 Posts: 3,050	Organic means no use of preservatives and chemicals. It means use of natural ingredients and fertilizers. My sister in law is a big believer of organic food. She opened up a business creating a clothing line along the lines of organic clothing. Don't ask me. Still, I love her to death as a sister.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)