Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on September 18, 2013
Food Security Raises the Obvious: Can We Feed 9.6 Billion by 2050?
World Population Day 2013 came and went with little fanfare this year. There were no organized efforts to draw attention to the annual United Nations observance, which underscores population issues. The sole article I saw on the subject matter-of-factly noted that “global population is growing faster than expected” as U.N. demographers revised their projections upwards to 9.6 billion by 2050 and 11 billion by 2100.
These new numbers are cause for concern, since that’s almost a whole billion more than the 10.1 billion projected for the century’s end in 2011, a mere two years earlier, points out Science Daily. But this year’s U.N. mandated theme for World Population Day focused on the need for reinvigorated contraceptive efforts–and missed the most salient point of the numbers.
“More people are eating resource-intensive ‘Western’ diets rich in meat and dairy products,” explains The Feeding of the Nine Billion, a report from the British policy institute Chatham House. And the numbers it cites due to this trend are potentially staggering: “the World Bank projects that by 2030 worldwide demand for food will increase by 50 percent, and for meat by 85 percent.” So crops will be taxed still further to meet the increasing demand for grain to feed animals.
Yet paradoxically, and what many don’t realize, today “the world produces enough food to feed everyone . . . 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase,” notes the FAO. The Chatham House report chalks it up to the Green Revolution, an international effort begun in the mid-20th century to propagate production-increasing agricultural improvements throughout the developing world, and notes that “global aggregate food production has kept pace–an astonishing achievement.”
Yet the fact that so many people are hungry or malnourished today “is the clearest illustration that not everyone has benefitted,” points out Chatham House. Why is food security compromised? It’s a complicated issue, with myriad answers.
The FAO notes poverty, harmful economic systems and conflicts are all principal causes of hunger and food scarcity, and in a Catch-22, “hunger is also a cause of poverty.” And Chatham House points out that one of the significant problems spawned by the Green Revolution is that the benefits of increased food production have not been allocated equitably. Though food exists, almost a billion people go hungry today because they lack access and entitlement to it.
So, while we do produce enough food to feed everyone currently, increased food production and food security may be a pressing issue in the future.
Some studies, such as the one just issued by the University of Minnesota’s Institute on the Environment (IonE), point out that crop yields worldwide are not increasing quickly enough to support estimated global needs in 2050. In addition, the world’s food and energy economies are inexorably intertwined, as Chatham House notes. For instance, we can’t produce fertilizers; harvest and process crops; transport and distribute them to market; cool and cook them and more without energy.
But can we really build a better food system? Many say yes. And it does not necessarily mean just producing more food. Instead, it means producing more in addition to addressing inequities. “More than two billion people live on less than $2 per day, global unemployment is at a record high and poor households in the developing world spend 70 percent of their income on food,” notes sustainable agriculture expert and Food Tank co-founder Danielle Nierenberg in Worldwatch Institute’s State of the World 2013.
Another reality is that all of the players in the process–from governments and development agencies to NGOs and funders–“tend to invest in increasing production and improving yields rather than in more-neglected parts of the food system that have the potential to improve livelihoods, decrease malnutrition and protect the environment,” says Nierenberg. Some examples she cites include efforts to reduce and/or prevent waste from field to fork, which can total 30 percent of yearly harvests, and a stronger focus on food aid and local school nutrition programs.
According to the National Resources Defense Fund (NRDC), 20 percent of the milk produced in the U.S. goes bad before it is purchased. Processing and packaging can help prevent waste by protecting and preserving food. For instance, aseptic processing and packaging technology enables nutritious yet perishable foods such as milk to be processed and packaged locally and transported great distances without requiring refrigeration. In addition, it extends the milk shelf life up to 12 months.
Ultimately, to grow a better food system we need a good recipe for success. There are several key components that will lead to healthier food systems everywhere. These include:
1. Investment in a 21st century Green Revolution.
“The 20th century Green Revolution achieved astonishing yield increases. Now, a 21st-century equivalent is needed – one that not only increases yields, but that also moves from an agricultural model that is input-intensive (in water, fertilizer, pesticide and energy) to one that is knowledge-intensive,” notes the Chatham House report. Genetically modified crops will have a role, but so will ecologically integrated approaches such as agroecology, which is a whole-systems approach based on traditional knowledge, alternative agriculture and local food system experiences and focuses on techniques that are often more resilient and equitable for communities.
2. Matching aid efforts to communities.
Last year, I noted that philanthropist-farmer Howard Buffett started out giving farmers in developing areas the best of modern agricultural technology, but now–after his forays in the field–only teaches methods that are affordable and sustainable. At Tetra Pak, we also believe in creating sustainable production chains, as evidenced by our Dairy Hub program that links remote smallholder farms in undeveloped countries to dedicated dairy processors. This helps communities flourish nutritionally, economically and environmentally.
3. Making the basics available to all.
Farms need access to five key resources: assets (including land, machinery and water); markets with infrastructures and communication networks for information on pricing and supplier standards; credit to allow access to supplies and avoid predatory lending; knowledge to disseminate R&D findings; and risk management tools to hedge against bad weather or crop spoilage, notes the Chatham Report. Nierenberg notes that while many reports substantiate the success of agroecological technologies, little attention is given to ensuring that farmers know about them.
4. Establishing an international agency for food security.
Just as the International Energy Agency was created to coordinate collective global efforts in future oil crises, an equivalent is needed to create an emergency response system for food scarcity, notes Chatham House. Issues to address can range from rectifying long-term supply agreements that can disadvantage poor countries that haven’t negotiated fair deals for themselves to global climate change and its impact on rising food prices.
Chatham House believes that the prospects for a 21st century Green Revolution look good, if ‘we’ play our cards right. That ‘we’ is a call for collective action between nations, timely action in developing countries, commitment to social responsibility and political sophistication. And in my assessment, it is a call for unflagging determination to collaborate, resolve our differences and move forward, since failure is not an option.
31 Comments on "Food Security Raises the Obvious: Can We Feed 9.6 Billion by 2050?"
J-Gav on Wed, 18th Sep 2013 9:24 pm
We can’t feed 7 billion now! Does that answer the title’s question? I’m aware that we COULD, but I also know that we WON’T. Why? Because we live in a system so skewed towards the rich and their vested interests (call it ‘plutocracy’ or ‘oligarchy’ as you please) that even working people have to wait until what ‘trickles down’ has lost most of its purchasing power before they get their hands on it. Those without jobs had better have solid families or very good friends.
And the Green Revolution turned out to be a disaster, Mr CEO of Tetra-Pak, in case you’ve been asleep for the last couple of decades … Chatham House … Yeah, right … Anybody who’s read Carroll Quigley’s “Tragedy and Hope” and his “The Anglo-American Establishment” knows they’ve long been at the center of the international elite’s program for our future. NB – Quigley was Bill Clinton’s mentor at Georgetown University.
Stilgar on Wed, 18th Sep 2013 9:49 pm
U.N. demographers revised their projections upwards to 9.6 billion by 2050 and 11 billion by 2100.
Only 1.4 billion increase in 50 years, from 2050 to 2100? Are they expecting a consciousness state of nirvana, the perfection of a world educational system, the pinnacle of advanced civilizations in which procreation is not really that much of an instinctive drive any longer (although most of the 9.6 billion+ still have sex year round)? Or is it a case of so many starving and diseased the population cannot rise much?
At the current rate of the increasing divide between the rich and poor coupled with the degradation of the planet in resource overshoot, the wealthy will probably live on Elysium. If you haven’t seen the movie, it’s an off world satellite only 20 minutes flight away, but only for the super elite. Some really good special effects of this amazing rotating off world shangrila worth seeing although it has the usual adolescent impossible type plot. In this case (Matt Damon) is exposed to a full lethal dose of radiation in which he’ll be dead in 5 days, but makes darn good use of the time to fight all comers including robots to bring down those in power for the benefit of the people of Earth. Of course how long Elysium would last once all those dirt poor people started using it, is something the movie never tackles.
actioncjackson on Wed, 18th Sep 2013 9:51 pm
I have doubts that ANY of us will see 2050, and if we do I’m sure it will be just wonderful.
J-Gav on Wed, 18th Sep 2013 9:57 pm
Sorry guys (and gals? – Why are there no female posters on this site?), it’s just that I get riled when I read “… collaborate, resolve our differences and move forward” as some kind of magical formula supposed to handle what’s coming up. Are these not the same bastards who would have the 99% on their knees begging for their next dollop of GMO gruel?
TIKIMAN on Wed, 18th Sep 2013 10:15 pm
LOL WAT.
peakoil.com just had an article saying population will fall.
What is this.. Yahoo.com?
Sheesh.
GregT on Thu, 19th Sep 2013 12:27 am
People that write articles such as this, are not paying attention to reality, or are in a serious state of denial.
Short of divine intervention, or some other type of miracle, there is no hope in hell of exponential growth continuing on, on this planet, for another 37 years.
We are already experiencing the signs of the ends of growth, and the decline will not be linear, it will be exponential, in direct relationship to the exponential rate at which we are depleting our life support systems.
If we end modern industrial society now, there may still be a chance of only a large percentage of the human population dying off. If we continue on the path that we are on, it is very possible, that we will trigger global catastrophic runaway climate change.
There are many very well esteemed scholars within our scientific communities, that are warning us that if we do trigger runaway climate change, it could destroy our planet’s cabability of sustaining life, in less than a decade.
Do we believe the ‘alarmist’ scientists, or do we believe the global elite, and their corporately controlled media. Who really stands to gain from their dogma? Who has reputations to lose?
I’m betting that we will listen to whatever makes us feel the ‘best’, instead of facing a grim reality.
I’m also betting that will will cook the planet, and most everything on it. Including ourselves.
Ricardo on Thu, 19th Sep 2013 12:36 am
@Stilgar: elysium is already happening in los angeles, rio, new york, and many other places in europe, it’s just that elites want super cheap slaves and they let in hordes of third world people who will work for a few bucks, this is the future of western civilization, masses of impoverished third world populations working for the super wealthy.
GregT on Thu, 19th Sep 2013 12:48 am
I work with lots of your “hordes of third world people” Ricardo, and I can assure you, that they are more intelligent, highly educated, harder working, and are making much more money than you will ever dream of.
GregT on Thu, 19th Sep 2013 12:58 am
Oh, and in case you haven’t already clued in, Western civilization is on it’s way out. Us stupid white people got it all wrong to begin with.
BillT on Thu, 19th Sep 2013 1:01 am
GregT, you and I seem to view the world through the same lens and, as best as I can tell, many on here all have their own personal blinders as to reality. Some are prejudiced, some naive, some (I suspect) are just young and inexperienced but influenced by the MSM.
I read the headline, then, if it is likely to be BS, I skip to the author for confirmation. If I am unfamiliar with the author, I klik on the name and google who or what it is, their history and/or sponsors. You can learn a lot about the world that way.
This one tells me that it is a fluff piece designed to make the sheeple think about sometime beyond most of their lives, not the reality of tomorrow.
There will not be anywhere near 9.5 Billion in 2050. There may not even be 9.5 million with an ‘M’. The internet is such a great place to learn, but few get beyond Facebook or the like. Too bad!
SilentRunning on Thu, 19th Sep 2013 1:10 am
Can we feed 9.5 billion by 2050? No. Will we? No.
The super elites will continue to squeeze more and more out of the commons, until finally there will be a revolt, ecological collapse, mass starvation and population crash. The poor, if there is any justice in the world, will eat the rich before starving to death.
GregT on Thu, 19th Sep 2013 1:38 am
BillT,
I turned off the television back in the seventies. From time to time, I turn it on, just to remind myself of why I turned it off to begin with.
People do not want to hear the truth, they only want to hear what they find to be comfortable. Cognitive dissonance. Unfortunately for all of us, ignoring the truth, does not make it go away.
Kenz300 on Thu, 19th Sep 2013 2:54 am
If you can not afford to put food on the table or a roof over your families head you can not afford another child.
It is about common sense.
rollin on Thu, 19th Sep 2013 3:01 am
No, don’t have to feed 9.5 billion in 2050. Won’t be that many people.
I just finished watching 10,000 BC, great movie. Basically, “civilized” people inflict themselves on hunter gatherer tribes. I’ll take that hunter-gatherer life style over the “civilized” idiocy any day.
Another great one is Apocalypto. Love the ending.
Shaved Monkey on Thu, 19th Sep 2013 3:11 am
The only way to stop having to find a way to feed 10 billion is to not be able to feed 9.5 billion
GregT on Thu, 19th Sep 2013 3:47 am
And to go full circle here,
J-Gav said:
“We can’t feed 7 billion now! Does that answer the title’s question?”
LT on Thu, 19th Sep 2013 5:14 am
Back to the basic. Let do some simple math to see if we can or cannot feed 9.5 billion people in 2050.
As of today, the world population stands at 7.0 billion people. And the conventional + unconventional oil production stands at 90 million barrels per day (mbpd).
In 2005, 8 years ago, oil production was roughly at 85 mbpd. 5 million barrel increase in 8 years; thus, assume linearity in oil production, in 2050 oil production increase will be:
[(2050 – 2013)* 5M]/8 = 23 mbpd
That means, by 2050, oil production per day should be:
90 mbpd (today) + 23 mbpd (increase in 37 years) = 113 mbpd .
Thus, if the world can pump 113 mbpd in 2050 then yes, there is a chance we can feed 9.5 billion people.
And thus, the question of whether we are able to feed 9.5 billion people now becomes the question of if we can pump that much oil out of the ground by 2050.
Do you really think this is realistic?
I do not.
Therefore, if oil goes into decline, population will also go into decline together with other things as well.
dashster on Thu, 19th Sep 2013 9:50 am
“I work with lots of your “hordes of third world people” Ricardo, and I can assure you, that they are more intelligent, highly educated, harder working, and are making much more money than you will ever dream of.”
So then it would “hordes of intelligent highly educated harder working third world people” taking jobs from workers in developed countries. It doesn’t make the developing world workers any less screwed if you romanticize the third worlders.
dashster on Thu, 19th Sep 2013 9:54 am
“Oh, and in case you haven’t already clued in, Western civilization is on it’s way out. Us stupid white people got it all wrong to begin with.”
That is correct. We gave all our manufacturing jobs to China and others, as many white collar jobs as we could to India and others, and then took in as many of the desperate hordes of the third world as we could. We got it completely wrong, and yet that is still seen as the ideal solution. Go figure!
Hugh Culliton on Thu, 19th Sep 2013 11:02 am
Soylent Green is people!
Ricardo on Thu, 19th Sep 2013 6:49 pm
Greg, you are a damn stupid traitor, white people won`t perish, the only people on the way out is people like you.
By the way, I`m succesful, and I make money too, so what?
GregT on Thu, 19th Sep 2013 10:20 pm
I hold no prejudices Ricardo. I have no need to make myself feel better, by putting other groups of people down.
If it does come down to a race war, which people like you seem to be supporting, us white people are vastly outnumbered, and will be the ones to perish.
All I can say to you Ricardo, is that you better hope that the people that you are so quick to judge, don’t think the same way about you. Because if they do, you will need to be able to run, fast.
GregT on Thu, 19th Sep 2013 10:57 pm
“So then it would “hordes of intelligent highly educated harder working third world people” taking jobs from workers in developed countries”
Nope, they are competing for the jobs, they just happen to have higher educations, and much better work ethics, than many of us do.
“We gave all our manufacturing jobs to China and others, as many white collar jobs as we could to India and others,”
Wrong again, we are exploiting other people’s labor, so that we can have cheaper consumer goods. Us white people have been doing this for centuries. We somehow have this bizarre idea that we deserve more than everyone else. It is this flawed attitude and sense of self worth, that is in part, about to destroy our economies, and we are mostly too stupid to figure this out.
dashster on Fri, 20th Sep 2013 2:33 am
“Nope, they are competing for the jobs, they just happen to have higher educations, and much better work ethics, than many of us do.”
So you think they are superior to us. Which makes you a racist.
“Wrong again, we are exploiting other people’s labor, so that we can have cheaper consumer goods.”
Anybody who thinks that giving an American’s job to a non-American is exploiting the non-American – is wrong.
dashster on Fri, 20th Sep 2013 2:34 am
“I hold no prejudices Ricardo. ”
I think you should rethink that. You appear to feel that non-whites are superior. Go back and reread all your comments.
Ricardo on Fri, 20th Sep 2013 3:09 am
Greg is just an anti white who hates white people and white children, he actually promotes genocide. In a serious country that’s a felony.
J-Gav on Fri, 20th Sep 2013 12:21 pm
I think you’ve misunderstood Greg’s comments, Ricardo. If YOU reread them, you’ll find what he promotes is a reasoned, gradual, worldwide acceptance of the idea that our human population should voluntarily trim itself. His skepticism as to whether that will actually happen is not a promotion of genocide but simply an observation that presently we’re not showing a great propensity towards self-preservation.
actioncjackson on Fri, 20th Sep 2013 1:07 pm
Ricardo/dashster,
You’re angry at the control system, not other races, you don’t realize that you’re transposing your anger. Kind of like when I wake up in the morning for work and I throw my alarm clock across the room; I’m not angry at the alarm clock, I’m angry at the control structure that dictates my life.
Kenz300 on Fri, 20th Sep 2013 3:47 pm
The poorest people are having the most children……….
The connection between their poverty and family size has not sunk in.
If you can not provide for yourself you can not provide for a child.
GregT on Fri, 20th Sep 2013 3:55 pm
“Anybody who thinks that giving an American’s job to a non-American is exploiting the non-American – is wrong.”
Wrong again dashster.
Anybody that buys cheap consumer goods, like cell phones for example, made in third world countries, is sending American jobs overseas. Put your money where your mouth is, and stop buying cheap consumer goods from American big box stores.
Ricardo,
It is very obvious that you are not happy with your life. Stop blaming everyone else for your problems. Go and get some help.
And for both of you, see what I wrote above:
People do not want to hear the truth, they only want to hear what they find to be comfortable. Cognitive dissonance. Unfortunately for all of us, ignoring the truth, does not make it go away.
peakyeast on Fri, 20th Sep 2013 4:57 pm
The real question they should be asking is:
Should we?