[Scpg] Is food security the LAST thing we should worry about?

Thu Feb 11 14:04:46 PST 2010

Interesting viewpoint. He doesn't address world wide topsoil depletion/salinization or water issues which can impact food supply and are not necessarily remediable by petroleum products.

--- On Thu, 2/11/10, LBUZZELL at aol..com <LBUZZELL at aol.com> wrote:

> From: LBUZZELL at aol.com <LBUZZELL at aol.com>
> Subject: [Scpg] Is food security the LAST thing we should worry about?Inter
> To: transition-sb at googlegroups.com, sbfoodfuture at googlegroups..com, sbperm2006 at googlegroups.com, Scpg at arashi.com, sb-simplicity-circle at lists.riseup.net
> Date: Thursday, February 11, 2010, 12:33 PM
> 
> 
>  
>  
> 
> "I suspect we focus on food
> in part because providing 
> it appears much more possible than, say, keeping the
> financial, health care, or 
> automotive industries running."
>  
> http://www.patternliteracy.com/food.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Food the Last Thing to Worry
> About?
> 
> Our food system is woefully dependent on
> petroleum, as writers 
> such as Richard Heinberg (1) and Michael Pollan (2) have
> eloquently pointed out. 
> Soaring food costs have led to riots in some countries, and
> in unstable nations, 
> famines rage regularly. Fears of empty grocery shelves have
> made food security 
> the centerpiece of many a post-Peak Oil plan, and among
> those watching energy 
> descent, a common refrain is that the best way to guarantee
> your food supply is 
> to buy a piece of land and grow your own.
> Yet in the developed world, especially the
> breadbasket nations 
> such as the US, Canada, and other food-exporting countries,
> the food network may 
> be one of the last systems to fail during energy descent.
> In developing a wise 
> post-Peak strategy, assessing relative risks is critical.
> Devoting large amounts 
> of time and resources to events that are less likely leaves
> us unprepared for 
> more probable difficulties.. I don’t want to discourage
> anyone from growing 
> food—I’m a serious gardener myself and could list
> dozens of excellent reasons 
> for doing it. But I think there are many reasons not to be
> focusing primarily on 
> food as the system most likely to fail. This isn’t to say
> that industrial, 
> oil-based agriculture is invulnerable, let alone
> sustainable. And we may see 
> temporary shortages of specific foods. But there are many
> reasons why our fears 
> of a food collapse—particularly when they lead us to a
> go-it-alone, 
> grow-your-own response—may be distracting us from
> focusing on more immediate and 
> likely risks.
> First, two notes of clarification: This
> article is about net 
> food-exporting nations such as the US, where I live. In the
> less-developed 
> world, where food growing has been abandoned for export
> crops that are sold for 
> cash to import commodity food, the food system is far more
> vulnerable. And by 
> “food collapse” I mean a prolonged inability to produce
> essential foods, not 
> brief or local shortages of certain items, or high prices
> while supplies are 
> ample. Volatile commodities markets, weather, and the other
> gyrations of our 
> uncertain era mean that temporary or local shortages can
> always occur.
> Food gets a lot of attention in part because
> we need it to 
> survive, but also because one solution to a food
> crisis—growing your own—seems 
> doable. I suspect we focus on food in
> part because providing 
> it appears much more possible than, say, keeping the
> financial, health care, or 
> automotive industries running.
> Why would I argue that food collapse in
> breadbasket nations is not 
> likely, when today’s farming is so dependent on
> hydrocarbons? Our food system is 
> complex—much more so than it needs to be—but many of
> our society’s other 
> structures are far more complex, and thus more vulnerable.
> Joseph Tainter (3) 
> and others point out that complex systems need increasing
> energy inputs, and 
> eventually reach a point of diminishing returns, so that
> the costs of complexity 
> eventually outrun its benefits. When inputs decline, the
> most complex systems 
> are often the first to fail, since they need vast resources
> to maintain them. 
> With that in mind, we can ask what is likely to fail first
> during energy 
> descent. That way, we’ll know what we should direct our
> energies toward 
> preparing for.
> Is it any wonder that one of the first
> complex systems to collapse 
> has been our financial system? The energy and complexity
> used in Byzantine 
> financial instruments such as collateralized debt
> obligations and credit default 
> swaps, and in moving trillions of dollars through millions
> of highly 
> orchestrated transactions each day, is immensely greater
> than what it takes to 
> grow, process, and ship food. Another system teetering near
> collapse is health 
> care, and it, too, is a fantastically complicated system
> needing sophisticated, 
> expensive equipment and years of specialized training for
> practitioners, all 
> administered by an insurance system of equally staggering
> complexity. Thus the 
> most complex systems are already collapsing. When viewed
> through the lens of 
> complexity, the relative robustness of the developed
> world’s food system, even 
> as finance collapses and health care becomes increasingly
> unavailable, is less 
> mysterious.
> It would bolster my 
> argument to show quantitative measurements of these
> systems’ relative 
> complexity, and for these I’ll point to Howard T. Odum
> (4) and his concepts of 
> emergy (not energy, but embedded energy) and transformity. Emergy measures the 
> total solar energy used directly and indirectly to make a
> product or service. 
> Transformity builds on this, and means the emergy of one
> type required to 
> produce a unit of energy of another type. It describes
> conversion losses and 
> energy quality. For example, think of a food chain. A
> million calories of solar 
> energy can make a given quantity of algae. When plankton
> eat this, it might 
> yield 1000 calories of plankton. These plankton, when
> eaten, become one calorie 
> of fish. Thus the transformity of that one calorie of fish
> is one million 
> calories: the amount of sunlight used at the beginning of
> the food chain divided 
> by the one calorie of fish produced. The plankton, being
> lower on the food 
> chain, have a lower transformity: 1000 calories, or a
> million calories of algae 
> divided by 1000 calories of plankton produced.
> Processes that have higher transformity
> don’t just need more 
> energy per output. They also contain more energy conversion
> steps, which bring 
> efficiency losses and places for the system to fail. Also,
> high-transformity 
> systems usually need more complex technologies than
> processes of lower 
> transformity. Plankton are simpler than fish.
> So how complex is our food system? Odum’s
> work tells us that food 
> transformities in industrial cultures are on the order of
> 25,000 to 100,000 
> sej/J (solar emergy joules input per joule gained). This is
> low compared to 
> nearly all other familiar goods and services. Odum says
> that the production of 
> paper has a transformity of 215,000 sej/J; electricity,
> 200,000 sej/J; cement, 
> 750,000,000 sej/J; and complex transactions based on
> digital technologies, such 
> as investment banking, have transformities in the billions
> or higher. If 
> complexity, transformity, and stability are related—and I
> think they are—then 
> activities of great complexity and high transformities,
> including office jobs, 
> electricity, communications, and nearly all social and
> economic services, will 
> be disrupted before food production will be. We’re seeing
> that process unwind 
> today. Training and supplying an investment banker or
> surgeon is more complex 
> than doing the same for a farmer. As complexity plummets
> due to energy descent, 
> jobs and products of lower transformity are more likely to
> remain.
> But even if the food system isn’t all that
> complex, you might 
> argue, we have paved over much of our farmland and use oil
> to make food. Let’s 
> look at the numbers. The US is a net exporter of food, and
> produces roughly 4000 
> calories of food per person (5). To stock this larder, the
> US uses roughly 3 
> million barrels per day of petroleum, or 15% of our total
> consumption (6). Thus 
> the US could cut the amount of oil used by the food system
> in half and still 
> provide a basic 2000-calorie diet. That requires 1.5
> million barrels per day or 
> its equivalent, which should be available for some time.
> This means that neither 
> complexity nor oil are likely to be limiting factors on
> food production in 
> breadbasket nations until after the failure of other more
> complex, 
> energy-intensive elements of our lives.
> Cheap oil has freed us to pour staggering
> amounts of energy, both 
> human and fossil, into non-essentials, such as the
> entertainment, recreation, 
> tourism, sports, media, and other fuel-gobbling industries.
> Inexpensive oil lets 
> much of the developed world endlessly buzz around in
> inefficient cars and jets. 
> In other words, 85% of our fossil-fuel consumption is used
> for things other than 
> food, usually wastefully. As oil becomes expensive we will
> choose to redirect a 
> modest portion of that 85% away from long commutes,
> non-essential industries, 
> and other symptoms of cheap oil, in order to feed
> ourselves. It’s likely that as 
> we round Hubbert’s bend we’ll return to putting 30-50%
> of our energy use toward 
> food production, as has been the case for most of human
> history (7). This 
> reordering of oil priorities can buy us the time needed to
> reconfigure our 
> grossly inefficient, hydrocarbon-based food system into
> something far more 
> localized and sustainable, if we’re smart.
> Another oft-cited argument for food collapse
> is that fossil-fuel 
> supplies are unreliable. What if foreign producers cut us
> off? The US currently 
> produces about 5.2 million barrels of oil per day. Canada
> and Mexico are the top 
> two petroleum importers for the US, providing about 40% of
> our imports, or 3.8 
> million bbl/day (8). Thus 9 million bbl/day are currently
> available from nearby 
> sources. That’s three times the oil used by our food
> system, and six times what 
> is needed for a basic diet. Natural gas, used to make
> nitrogen fertilizers, is a 
> critical agricultural resource that also comes from
> relatively stable sources. 
> Canada provides 95% of America’s natural-gas imports. The
> continent’s 
> intertwined economies and the realities of geopolitics make
> it probable that 
> hydrocarbons will flow long enough for the US to shift to a
> less oil-intensive 
> agriculture. Obviously, oil output will continue its
> decline, and there are 
> bound to be periodic crises, but the numbers suggest that
> starvation in the US 
> is far from a certainty.
> Food production is truly the oldest
> profession. We’re good at it, 
> we’ve been doing it for 10,000 years, and it is a
> relatively simple system to 
> run. It is at the base of a large cultural pyramid, which
> makes it fundamental, 
> so although disrupting it would be catastrophic, it is also
> more elementary and 
> thus easier to keep running than all the systems above its
> level of complexity. 
> There are gardeners in over 71 million American households
> (9), so there is a 
> sizable knowledge base to help with the transition to more
> local food 
> production.
> Almost certainly, food 
> will shift from being a minor piece of the US economy to
> once again requiring 
> one-third to one-half of our labor and energy. The example
> of Cuba, which in a 
> few years retooled its agriculture system after a sudden
> and near-total cutoff 
> of oil, shows that food systems can be modified quickly.
> How long would it take 
> us to convert the nearest city park, or a soybean field
> that’s growing 
> feedstocks for newspaper ink and car lacquer, into food
> production if it were 
> urgent? One season. The recent substitution of ethanol corn
> for soybeans over 
> vast acreages in a single season shows how quickly farmers
> can respond to new 
> markets. And as food prices rise, people thrown out of work
> by energy descent 
> will find jobs growing food, as Sharon Astyk and Aaron
> Newton have suggested in 
> their book, A
> Nation of Farmers.
> As cheap shipping disappears, can we feed
> ourselves locally? To 
> gauge this, we need to know if there is enough farmland
> near cities to feed 
> their populations. Researchers at Cornell University found
> that the basic 
> calories to feed Rochester, New York’s population of
> 225,000 could be grown on 
> existing cropland within 16.5 miles (26.6 km) of the city
> limits and would cover 
> 36,000 hectares (90,000 acres) (10). This admittedly
> simplistic analysis looks 
> only at caloric needs, not overall nutrition. To provide a
> balanced and diverse 
> diet might require a larger area, so let’s say we’d
> need twice as much land, or 
> 180,000 acres.. That area is still within 25 miles of the
> city, close enough to 
> easily bring goods to market. This could save much of the
> fuel used today to 
> transport the infamous 1500-mile salad. Plus, the Cornell
> analysis assumes 
> wasteful conventional agriculture techniques, not
> high-intensity ones that use 
> local nutrient sources such as composted waste and animal
> and human manure, as 
> well as other resource-saving methods that people dependent
> on local food would 
> readily use. And though the largest cities might be unable
> to feed themselves 
> locally, but it is likely that for them we will set fuel
> priorities to ship food 
> from more distant farms.
> And it is the reordering of fuel priorities
> that leads us to one 
> of the most powerful reasons that food supplies are less
> likely to run out than 
> almost any other resource. Politicians understand that
> hungry people topple 
> governments.. We’re deeply imbued with cultural lore
> reflecting this. Most people 
> know little else about Marie Antoinette other than her
> apocryphal taunt to 
> starving peasants that ensured her rendezvous with the
> guillotine, “Let them eat 
> cake.” Trotsky noted that every society is only three
> meals away from a 
> revolution. History shows that any functional state short
> of a kleptocracy will 
> allow almost every other service—health care, banking,
> sanitation, schools, 
> transportation, even empire-building—to languish before
> it allows its people to 
> go hungry. Preserving the flow of at least 1.5 million
> barrels of oil per day 
> for food will be a critical priority of the US
> government.
> Let me be the first to admit that there’s
> still some chance of 
> food collapse. Perhaps stupid or corrupt leaders will
> choose to direct energy 
> resources not toward food but to the military or the rich.
> Or it’s possible that 
> the link between the financial sector and food, via the
> futures and commodities 
> markets, may play havoc with food supplies. And it’s
> certain that adjusting from 
> today’s food consuming 10% of the average family budget
> to the historical norm 
> of 30% to 50% will be disruptive.
> Whatever your chosen post-Peak scenario,
> it’s smart to keep 
> emergency food and water on hand, as much as makes you feel
> comfortable. But 
> focusing on surviving a food-system collapse reminds me of
> the story of the 
> fellow searching for his keys under the streetlight. He
> didn’t lose them there, 
> but that was the only place where the light was bright
> enough to see. In crisis, 
> we often default to doing what we know even if it’s not
> the wisest action. We 
> can’t individually fix the economy or health care, yet we
> certainly can grow 
> some food, and that may be why it is central to many
> post-Peak plans. And I 
> agree: growing food is simple. It’s an ancient skill that
> is at the heart of 
> human culture, and even in its industrial manifestation, it
> is a robust system 
> that is less complex and energy-intensive than most of
> society’s other 
> activities. That’s why I suspect the food system will
> last longer than much of 
> the rest of the oil society. Although brief disruptions are
> certainly possible, 
> in breadbasket nations food is more likely than many other
> aspects of our 
> culture to make it through the transition.
> But for a thousand other reasons, plant a
> garden anyway.
> References
> 1. Heinberg, Richard. “What Will We Eat as
> the Oil Runs Out?” 
> http://www.richardheinberg.com/museletter/188
> 2. Pollan, Michael. “Farmer in Chief,”
> New York Times Magazine, 
> October 8, 2008.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/magazine/12policy-t.html
> 3. Tainter, 
> Joseph. The Collapse 
> of Complex Societies.
> 4. Odum, Howard 
> T. A Prosperous Way Down.
> 5. Putnam, J, J Allshouse, L. S.. Kantor.
> U.S. Per Capita Food 
> Supply 
> Trends
> http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/FoodReview/DEC2002/frvol25i3a.pdf
> 6. I’m taking the middle of estimates that
> vary from 19%, (see 
> Michael Pollan, above), to 10% (see Martin C. Heller and
> Gregory A. Keoleian; 
> Life Cycle-Based Sustainability Indicators for Assessment
> of the U.S. Food 
> System. http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS00-04.pdf
> 7. Braudel, 
> Fernand. The Structures of Everyday Life.
> 8. Energy Information Administration. Crude
> Oil and Total 
> Petroleum Imports, Top 15 Countries. 
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
> 9. National Gardening Association, 2005.
> Environmental Lawn and 
> Garden Survey.
> 10. Peters, Christian J., Arthur J.
> Lembo, and Gary W. 
> Fick, 2005. A Tale of Two Foodsheds: Mapping Local Food
> Production Capacity 
> Relative to Local Food Requirements. 
> http://crops.confex.com/crops/viewHandout.cgi?uploadid=226
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to George Vye for sharing this with 
> us 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Scpg mailing list
> Scpg at arashi.com
> https://www.arashi.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/scpg
> 