Without access to cheap fossil fuels, industrial agriculture will end. Heinberg predicts that without cheap oil and natural gas (for fertilizer and pesticides and to run farm machinery), the planet can support at most two billion people. Organic farmers in the Biointensive agriculture movement dispute this figure, based on twenty years of research showing that Biointensive methods can produce considerably higher yields (150-200%) those of traditional agriculture. However none of these studies take into account the massive land area required to produce meat.
As I write in Population and Sustainability: Addressing the Taboo, I am extremely optimistic about humanity's potential ability to control population. Fertility levels are already plummeting in both the developing and industrialized world, owing to increased, urbanization and female literacy, as well as women's large scale entry into the workforce.
8. Drastic dietary changes.
Without the cheap transportation made possible by fossil fuels, we all be forced to adopt the 100 mile diet -- limiting ourselves to the locally grown foods in season. Moreover based on equitable distribution of food and energy resources, all of us will most likely become vegetarian. At the moment the planet is only capable of providing a meat diet for 1/3 of the global population.
Will Global Population Drop Without Fossil Fuels?
Organic farmers in the Biointensive movement (an amalgamation of the eighty year old Biodynamic and French Intensive movements) dispute the 2 billion population limit Heinberg predicts for a post fossil fuel world. They point to studies showing that Biointensive methods increase crop yields by 150-200% (see http://www.theecologist.org/trial_investigations/268287/10_reasons_why_organic_can_feed_the_world.html). Given WHO and World Hunger studies revealing that our current system of industrial agriculture feeds only 84% of the world (the other 16% are continuously on the verge of starvation -- see http://www.prb.org/Journalists/PressReleases/2005/MoreThanHalftheWorldLivesonLessThan2aDayAugust2005.aspx), we could estimate that a switch from industrial to Biointensive agriculture could potentially feed a global population of 7.8 billion.
Now here's the catch: nearly all the research in Biointensive agriculture concerns yields of grains and vegetable crops. Preliminary research applying Biointensive methods to livestock grazing reveals that an agricultural system providing every global resident with meat is only possible with a global population of 2-3 billion.
The average energy input required to produce meat protein is eleven times greater that that required for grain protein production. A meat- based diet also requires ten times more land than a plant-based diet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_vegetarianism) and 100 times more water (http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/660S.long). In the US alone, the amount of energy, land and water used to raise livestock grains to would be sufficient to feed an additional 840 million people eating a plant-based diet. (http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/660S.long).
The Privilege of Eating Meat
At the moment approximately 1/3 of the planet (those in the privileged industrialized world) consume meat (http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/660S.long). Owing to shortages of cropland, fresh water, and energy resources the other 2/3 (4.7 billion people) of the planet are compelled to survive on a vegetarian diet. With rapid industrial development in India and China, these ratios are changing rapidly. A growing middle class in both countries is developing an insatiable demand for meat, dairy and other animal-based products. In New Zealand this is a daily news item, as China and India purchase the bulk of Australia and New Zealand's meat and dairy exports.
Hard Choices for Activists
What this means, in essence, is that sustainability and social justice activists are faced with some hard choices. It we are genuine in our commitment to replace capitalism with a more egalitarian society, we need to face the hard reality that no society is truly egalitarian if only rich people eat meat. Thus according to my calculations, a truly equal distribution of land and water resources will either require a strong commitment to reduce global population to 2-3 billion -- or a commitment by 1/3 of the planet to give up meat.
If we fail to make this choice -- and do nothing -- we will be left with a scenario in which Malthusian forces (war, famine and disease) drastically reduce global population for us.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
