Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on April 7, 2016
The world’s going to need 50% more food by 2050
Imagine if Golden Corral, the super buffet restaurant, released a report stating that by 2050, their business model would no longer be sustainable.
No longer would they be able to offer an all-you-can-eat buffet with all the fixings of a Thanksgiving feast. Rather, they’d replace it with an all-you-can-drink smoothie bar with tasty protein options.
The reason: massive food shortages.
Clearly Golden Corral didn’t release such a report, but the World Bank did. The organization forecasts that by 2050, we’ll need 50% more food to feed the world’s population.
So here’s the problem. Between now and 2050, they expect the world’s population to grow from seven billion to nine billion. Even given our demographic outlook, which shows most developed countries will have trouble just maintaining their populations, we’re still looking at about 10 billion people before the end of the century.
But the real problem is that due to worsening climate conditions, crop yields will be cut by 25% during that same time frame.
Uh-oh.
Policymakers and scientists are attacking this issue from the crop-production angle, but it’s not as easy as just turning up the production-volume knob when we need it.
For one, our climate for growing crops is rapidly changing, requiring plants that can withstand harsher, drier, and hotter growing conditions. And secondly, our space for growing crops is shrinking as the population continues to expand.
Major companies in the seed and plant growing industry have been trying to tackle the super plant issue for decades by using techniques that blend multiple species of plants together.
You have probably heard people refer to the seed-industry powerhouse Monsanto Company as “Monsatan” or “Frankenfood.” They’ve led the charge in creating a more climate-resistant crop by combining multiple plant species.
Problem is, the U.S. government considers these hybrid crops to be genetically modified organisms, or GMOs for short, which I’m sure you’ve heard the raging debate back and forth on.
The issue is so complex, GMOs are actually regulated by three separate government agencies: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Andrew Harnik/ReutersEPA Administrator Gina McCarthy testifies before a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing in Washington, Thursday, March 17, 2016, to look into the circumstances surrounding high levels of lead found in many residents’ tap water in Flint, Michigan.
Well thankfully, now we have another option!
CRISPR, the gene-editing technology that’s currently being used to eradicate cancer and other horrible diseases, is now being applied to plants.
Think of this technology as the find-and-replace function on your computer. CRISPR goes through a string of DNA, finds the problem, then deletes or repairs the issue. In select situations it can even make an addition to make the DNA stronger.
When CRISPR is applied to plants, the possibilities are endless.
Chinese scientists were able to make bread wheat that had a resistance to powdery mildew.
Japanese scientists prolonged a tomato’s life by turning off genes that controlled ripening.
U.K. researchers tweaked a gene in barley that affected grain dormancy. (Leave it to the Brits to make beer more sustainable.)
The best part of applying the CRISPR technology to plants is that the U.S. Government doesn’t consider these genetically modified organisms.
GMOs get their labeling because the underlying plant is a combination of multiple species. But with CRISPR, the plant species stays intact. It just gets a tune-up!
Some companies, namely Caribou Biosciences and DuPont have identified the potential here, and are hoping to bring these products to market in the next five to 10 years.
Still, there’s the issue of where to put all these crops. It’s great if we can get plants to survive, but we still have to figure out where to put them!
To solve the space issue for crops, a new urban agriculture industry is emerging. Last summer, Harry identified a company called AeroFarms in Newark, NJ that actually grows plants within old city buildings using aeroponics.
With aeroponics, sunlight is replaced with LED lighting, and uses a minimal amount of water to spread a mist around the plants. And there’s no need for soil or pesticide.
But this is just the beginning. How we cultivate and grow our food sources over the coming decades is going to radically change as the earth’s population continues to expand and our climate adjusts.
In the meantime, I’m going to hit the all-you-can-eat buffet while it’s still around
14 Comments on "The world’s going to need 50% more food by 2050"
PracticalMaina on Thu, 7th Apr 2016 11:47 am
Pushing indoor LED gardening, more complexity and more resources. Drip watering systems that are used on some orchards ect need to be developed to water certain high yield crops, more efficiently than current center post set ups. When you make a fine mist of water threw a sprinkler head, in the summer heat, it evaporates a large portion. If you are going to have a high power demanding food system, I like aquaponics not that I have any personal experience, I just like the thought of mercury free seafood.
J-Gav on Thu, 7th Apr 2016 11:52 am
There ain’t gonna be 50% more food by 2050. It should be clear by now what that means …
Davy on Thu, 7th Apr 2016 1:47 pm
I guess we are going to do 50% more food with a renewable society also because that is being talked about at the same time. We also need to mention all the talk about energy needs growing to meet growing population and consumption trends. We better get with it the. Because none of this talk is materializing.
More, more, and more with less, less, and less doesn’t add up. Population growth doesn’t add up when food productivity growth does not add up. You can’t grow population without food productivity growth. All this talk about people changing eating patterns so we can have more people is BS also. People are going to eat their tradional foods until they can’t even if that means people going hungry.
No new land to exploit so we have to get more from what we have at the same time negative food growing problems are multiplying. We know what these are but mainly land loss, soil loss, and water scarcity. All this at the same time climate is changing abruptly. Sounds like a brick wall.
penury on Thu, 7th Apr 2016 2:54 pm
Yes, the humans are running out of food, humans are running out of water,humans are running out of usable energy, humans are running out of land for crops, Do you think there are too many humans? No, we need more technology.
HARM on Thu, 7th Apr 2016 4:05 pm
@penury,
You speak of the issue that dare not speak it’s name? Heresy! More humans, more “growth” = double-plus good.
To me, the most amazing thing about the current age we live in is that BAU and TPTB have managed to kick this can so blasted FAR. Seriously, Paul Ehrlich predicted food riots by the 1990s (which was, btw, a stupidly premature and alarmist thing to do as it provided endless straw-man fodder for the Julian Simons of the world).
And yet here we are *still* with no end to growth or BAU in sight. How long can they extend and pretend? How far down the timeline can that Limits to Growth can be kicked? Interesting times…
makati1 on Thu, 7th Apr 2016 8:29 pm
There is plenty of food right now but it is not evenly distributed. The Us alone wastes enough food to feed the entire 100 million people in the Philippines each year.
Obesity is growing in the West. Is that a sign of lack of food? (Well, maybe lack of healthy food) And we are still feeding a billion cattle that are NOT necessary with enough grain to feed at least 6 billion people.
No, we are not running out of food. We are running out of intelligent use of what we have. Greed is killing us as a species.
Davy on Thu, 7th Apr 2016 8:44 pm
Someone does not realize food is directly affected by oil and economic issues. Food is a global commodity at many levels especially the staples that represent the food chain. You can’t talk collapse and redistributing food without considering issues of globalism.
There is not enough food for 7Bil people with a collapsed global economy. There is not enough food for 7Bil people with a declining oil complex. You can’t have your cake and eat it. Population is connected to food that is connected to globalism. Upset any part of that equation and people starve.
Asia is the most vulnerable to food issues by far being a heavy importer of both food and energy. Asia has 4.5BIL of the 7BIL global population. That fact speaks for itself.
GregT on Fri, 8th Apr 2016 12:22 am
“Asia is the most vulnerable to food issues by far being a heavy importer of both food and energy.”
No country or geographic area is going to get through the bottleneck unscathed. Those regions that rely the most on fossil fuels for food production, storage, and distribution, will be hit the hardest.
North America is going to go down really hard.
makati1 on Fri, 8th Apr 2016 3:34 am
GregT, I bet you are replying to that Missouri mule. I don’t read any of his braying. LOL
Anyway, you are correct. I see what is happening in Asia first hand. I don’t need propaganda from the Us to tell me what is happening here. I will place my bets with Asia doing a lot better when the SHTF than any 1st world country and especially the coddled, ignorant, brainwashed, war mongering government teat suckers in America.
Davy on Fri, 8th Apr 2016 7:04 am
The reason you chose not to reply Makati the dumb one is your message is a failure. Every time I reply I crush your argument because it is an unsupportable agenda speak. It centers on redundant hate and resentment that reflects personality issues. All I can guess is it centers on a failed life in the US. You are so far into the absurd as to be a joke. You are constantly bragging about yourself and your decisions which always reminds me of someone with cognitive dissonance.
Your petty attacks on the US are often spot on in detail. Anyone can google and cherry pick data from the net. The US being so large and important is full of awesome attack material. Where you are wrong is dismissing the 3rd world has problems and especially Asia. You can’t have your cake and eat it and that is what you try to do and that is why you are so absurd. The problems you constantly highlight are problems of the world. You can’t decouple them. You can’t claim the US will fail and your screwed up Asia will rise above the flames.
Your whole Bric agenda has failed miserably. Your dollar agenda of failure is a failure. You rarely talk about a lofty Bric future because they are sinking into the swamp. You look stupid to crow about them now. You have sheeples here who like you but it is because they are pissed too. They want to leave their home and go to a Club Med except your Club Med is a lie. They also live that deadly serious passions of hate, envy, and resentment. Many are English speaking non Americans. Many are Americans who are apologist and want to be part of the group so to show their strips they do attack. These attacks must meet your group think anti Merikanism to be approved. If not your group viciously attacks with personal attacks and agenda speak.
The real problem with the world today is finger pointing and not looking in the mirror. Our problems are global and there is no decoupling. Your Asia and the Philippines is in the cross hairs of all the dangers of climate change, overpopulation coupled with overconsumption, and ecosystem destruction. Pollution is worse in Asia than any other region. Asia has 4BIL people of the 6BIL overshoot our global population represents. Makati your absurdity is getting worse too. As your message failures increase you are getting more extreme. You have nothing to crow about anymore so you focus on attacks. This is how Baghdad Bob was as the tanks were rolling into Baghdad. The more your message fails the worse your agenda.
Davy on Fri, 8th Apr 2016 7:08 am
“No country or geographic area is going to get through the bottleneck unscathed. Those regions that rely the most on fossil fuels for food production, storage, and distribution, will be hit the hardest.”
No shit Sherlock.
Kenz300 on Fri, 8th Apr 2016 8:26 am
Too many people……….create too much pollution and demand too many resources….
China made great progress in moving its people out of poverty…….one reason was slowing population growth…..
If you can not provide for yourself you can not provide for a child.
CLIMATE CHANGE, declining fish stocks, droughts, floods, air water and land pollution, poverty, water and food shortages all stem from the worlds worst environmental problem……. OVER POPULATION.
Yet the world adds 80 million more mouths to feed, clothe, house and provide energy and water for every year… this is unsustainable… and is a big part of the Climate Change problem
Birth Control Permanent Methods: Learn About Effectiveness
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/birth_control_permanent_methods/article_em.htm
GregT on Fri, 8th Apr 2016 8:49 am
Kenz,
“China made great progress in moving its people out of poverty…….one reason was slowing population growth…..”
The main reason was industrialization. Those who still live in poverty are the ones that continue to work the land by hand, and with animals.
rolling sky on Mon, 8th Apr 2019 4:03 am
There would be a massive food shortage.