Page added on February 18, 2015
There is growing concern over future food production and increasing competition for resources in the food, energy and water nexus are reflected in a new interest for investment in land and water. “I cannot farm myself out of this water problem,” says Mark Shannon, a farmer who in 2010 had to let his land in the San Joaquin valley be converted into a solar power field. This is a vivid illustration of the shortage of resources that will be a permanent feature in the future, and how land, water and energy interplay.
Eagle Ford in Texas is one of the fastest-growing shale oil and gas plays (a group of fields in the same geological zone) in the United States. It is also located in one of the driest parts of the country. Following the severe drought of 2011, concerns are mounting that oil and gas extraction is competing with irrigation for scarce water supplies. Drilling and fracturing rock formations to release oil and gas (fracking) uses enormous quantities of water: according to most estimates, each well in Eagle Ford consumes between fifteen to nineteen million liters of water. The economic returns from using groundwater for fracking are enormous and easily outstrip the returns of agriculture, so frackers can easily outbid farmers. If the groundwater owner can claim royalties on the output from oil and gas wells, using groundwater to frack wells could earn more than two thousand times more than growing maize.[i]
Not only oil and gas extraction needs a lot of water. Thermal power plants – fossil fuel-based and nuclear – require water, primarily for cooling. Per unit of energy produced, they are the energy sector’s most intensive users of water.[ii] In Europe, the repeated shut down of river-water cooled thermal power plants, in particular French nuclear reactors, during extended heat waves is a potent reminder of the water-energy nexus.[iii] Also, irrigation itself consumes a lot of electricity. Moving and treating water in California accounts for almost 20% of the state’s electricity.[iv]
In 2011, China had to make the tough choice between using water in the Three Gorges Dam to irrigate food crops or for energy. To safeguard food production the government released enough water to fill 2 million Olympic-sized swimming pools for irrigation by June 10. China’s oil demand increased by 300,000 barrels a day to make up for lost hydropower generation from the water used for crops.[v]
The International Energy Agency notes in its 2012 World Energy Outlook that energy production uses some 15% of the world’s water withdrawals and that access to water is an important criterion for assessing the viability of energy projects. The availability of and access to water could pose severe limitations for shale gas development and power generation in parts of China and the United States, India’s power plants, Canadian oil sands production and for reservoir pressures to support oil output in Iraq.[vi]
Shortage of one resource (land) can partly be compensated with another (water), but what happens if all of them are scarce? We see today that the market does not distribute scarce resources to those who are poor: if resources become scarcer the poor will be further disenfranchised. In more extreme cases the rich will drive their cars with fuels made from food crops that the poor cannot afford to buy and lack the resources to produce themselves.
7 Comments on "Conflicts in the food, energy, land and water nexus"
Makati1 on Wed, 18th Feb 2015 7:17 pm
The Metro Manila area gets about 60 inches of rain per year. Our farm area on the Pacific coast gets about 100 inches on average per year. Maybe we could export some to Cali?
dubya on Wed, 18th Feb 2015 9:58 pm
Obama has to stop the oil glut, …
or something…
Plantagenet on Wed, 18th Feb 2015 10:24 pm
Global climate changes is to blame for the drought in California. The California car culture emits one heck of a lot of CO2, which contributes to Global Warming.
GregT on Thu, 19th Feb 2015 12:16 am
“In more extreme cases the rich will drive their cars with fuels made from food crops that the poor cannot afford to buy and lack the resources to produce themselves.”
47 million on food assistance programs, and ethanol blended gasoline for the rest. Could this be a ‘more extreme case’, or a less extreme one?
Davy on Thu, 19th Feb 2015 7:11 am
I have been mentioning oil and the financial system as the foundational elements of BAU but in reality BAU is a subset of the foundational elements of humanity of food and water. Food and water have been coopted into BAU by the economics of production agriculture, global monocultures, food manufacturing of dispersed food resources, and global distribution of those food resources to dispersed locals. Many of these locals are not resilient and sustainable per population size and location.
Food and water are at limits and diminishing returns of supply growth and quality. The foundational elements of BAU the financial system and oil will ensure that a 7 BIL human population will shortly reach a terminal decline. Such a large population has only been possible through the complexity and energy intensity of BAU.
We often say OH, if the Americans eat less or quit using corn in ethanol we can solve this food problem. It is much more complicated than that and the real issues are financial globalism, production, and distribution. The economics of food in the context of BAU are the real issues. Water is a more localized issues but is a foundational human need that will further limit human population especially in those areas with poor water locations and growing populations.
The real issue with food and water is not over consumption globally it is local sustainability. I say this because BAU’s shelf life is dated and the likely date is the brick wall of POD & ETP of oil and the train wreck of BAU is at any time with the human nature of the financial system. Agriculture will quickly and by necessity go local then all those locations in massive overshoot to carrying capacity per their locals will experience catastrophic collapse.
I am pointing to Asia in the macro, cities like Las Vegas, any urban area of over 1MIL, and many locals in hostile location that need food resupply as a short list of a longish list. If your local is in one of these locations then consider relocation or you may have to relocate in mass. It is possible you will die in mass. The huge question with food and water is not the current academic talk about food and water being one of ethanol or over consumption, though these are central issues of the current functioning BAU, the central criterial is survivability of locals when the BAU dominate global AG system implodes.
There is absolutely no scaling alternative water or AG systems to BAU and the current population. These alternatives are the seeds of the future and they will provide the colostrum needed for these lifeboat locals when they are forced from their BAU support. In conclusion the issue of our food and water are distorted by the assumption BAU will continue when in reality the issues may be dated. The current survival of those locked in BAU are valid but the real issues of food and water are post BAU when all goes local.
rockman on Thu, 19th Feb 2015 7:19 am
“…according to most estimates, each well in Eagle Ford consumes between fifteen to nineteen million liters of water. The economic returns from using groundwater for fracking are enormous and easily outstrip the returns of agriculture, so frackers can easily outbid farmers.”. In Texas the ground water under a farmers land belongs to him: he can use it for his crops, sell it to oil companies, municipal water districts or just leave it in the ground. The choice is solely his. If he wants to buy someone else’s water he’ll compete with other farmers, oil companies and municipal water district for those rights. There is no “water war” in Texas today: the water rights issue was settled decades ago.
tahoe1780 on Thu, 19th Feb 2015 2:17 pm
16 ships – http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/