Headed For A Disaster Of Biblical Proportions?

Posted on May 1, 2013 by admin

I found this through Facebook the other day.  It follows some comments made by “legendary” investor Jeremy Grantham about humanities future.  This has led to the response in the link above.  I thought it would be interesting to take each of the authors assertions in term and see if I could agree.

Population

Mr Naam is quite correct as has been stated on this site at least once and in our book the rate of increase in population is slowing.  However there are still more people to have more babies and the global population is set to increase.  Mr Naam takes the middle of the range.  That is still a 35% increase on today’s figures.  It could be much higher than that figure.  All these people have to be fed (see below).  In a way this is like setting up a straw man.  There is little we can do about population except genocide in the short to medium term.  However, I agree the population data is encouraging.

Food

The next area is that of food.  Some data is used to show that the energy input per unit of food has fallen and that food production in the US has risen consistently since 1948.  Also if everyone was as productive as the US in their agriculture there would be plenty of food to go round.  All true, but its also true that this has relied on cheap fossil fuels.  As these have rocketed in price so has food, reaching an all time high last year.  As the If campaign say there is currently plenty of food to go round but its not distributed fairly.  Its also true that on average for every calorie of food intake 1o calories of energy has been used to get it into your mouth.  The institute of Mechanical engineers in their food report gave some data stating the human energy input per Ha of wheat was just 6MJ compared with 10651MJ for fertilizer (1).  The implied assumption made by Mr Naam seems to be that making nitrogen fertilizer can get more efficient indefinitely is not true, there are thermodynamic limits.  So plenty of food at the moment, but a rising population, less oil and climate change (not mentioned to the end and then only in passing) means this will be a significant challenge in the future.  All this brings us neatly to energy.

Energy

Basically all our problems will be solved by Solar power according to Naam.  I’m a big advocate of solar power.  As I look out of my window I can see the sun falling on one of my systems with the cat sunbathing by it.  Its also true that more than enough energy falls on the earth every hour to power the planet and the costs of solar have plummeted.  However, things are quite as simple as that.  It doesn’t fall always when we want it, or in the place or time we want it.  There are other renewables of course and we make them work in tandem.  But as we wrote in “No oil in the lamp” there are things we need to replace that renewables cannot fully, or only with great difficulty replace, such as air transport and plastics.  So we can run our electricity system only on renewables but this will require not only huge investment but also changes in the management of the system. All this again brings us neatly to materials.

Raw materials

The standard economic argument is used here, that higher demand drives up supply by people looking for more.  Two problems with this analysis.  First, there has to be more to find, there are physical limits.  Second, all the easy to extract stuff is mined first and lower grade ores take more energy to extract.  There are estimates that up to 40% of global energy might be required for mining by 2050.  This is perhaps the weakest bit of the whole article.

The article is based around a book the premise of which seems to be we can innovate our way out of problems.  Much as I like technology and admire humanities ability to innovate I don’t believe this is possible for all our problems.   To believe this  in my view is a faith position.   The power of human progress has long been questioned by Christians.  Certainly the bible seems to question it, think of the tower of Babel (Genesis 11v1-9).  In Ecclesiastes 1v18 the teacher writes

“For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;the more knowledge, the more grief“. 

Psalm 8v4 says

“what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?”

However,  it goes onto say

“Yet you have made him a little lower than  the heavenly being and crowned him with glory and honour.  You have given him  dominion over the works of your hands;  you have put all things under his feet, ..”

so there is clearly a balance.  Maybe the dividing line is to do with with remembering who gave us the knowledge to invent in the first place.

This article also raises the issue of whether human progress will continue.  Can things only get better?  There is a long standing Christian view that things are going downhill until Christ returns.  This is especially prevalent in the US.  When I was a young Christian I got a sort of non-apocalyptic watered down version.  Things were going to get worse in a low key kind of way until in the distant future Christ would return.  I was told during a UCCF mission that if people became Christians society’s problems would be solved.  I found this intellectually unsatisfactory then and even less so now (2).  After all Christians are not perfect (this is official see Romans 7v15).  I know I’m not.  There is plenty of evidence that our world is not perfect.  But looking back over the last 2000 years has anything changed?

“But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.”  2 Tim3v1-5.

I guess I still don’t think we are going to hell in a handcart or that we are ever going to build a perfect world.  Human nature shows the very best and worst of us.  I do know that we face some very significant problems in the years ahead and being in denial about them is not healthy or helpful.

Neil

1) “Global food waste not, want not”. IME 2013

2) Throughout the developed world as covered on this blog crime (almost all categories) is falling.  No one can explain it although its not because Western countries are getting more “Christian”, mine certainly isn’t.

Posted in Economics, Faith, Food, Nature, Peak oil | Leave a comment

neonicotinoids and oil

Posted on April 30, 2013 by admin

There has been a fuss in Europe over the last week or so over the use of a class of pesticides called neonicotinoids.  These have just been banned due to concerns by the EU over their effect on insects, particularly bees.  There has been an outcry from the agricultural industry saying this class of chemicals is vital to grow enough food.  The whole row raises a number of important questions.  First should these neonicotinoids be routinely flung around (oil seed rape seed has them routinely coated on it-why insects don’t generally fly around under the ground?), 1).  They are apparently sprayed on crops even when they are not being attacked.  Therefore the evidence that they are vital seems to be missing.  The Coop apparently stopped them in its farms.  Did they use something else or do without?

The second question is are they oil derived?  The answer is yes, 2).  Despite being closely related to nicotine which is harvested from a plant these chemicals are made using oil based chemistry.  If so they have no long term future and we will have to learn to do without.  It part of the challenge of peak oil.

The last question is are they harmful to bees.  The jury seems to be out although there is some evidence they may be, 3).  Reference 2) cites a paper on their harm to earthworms. Basically more research needs to be done on their effects on bees since they were passed for use before this was done.  Unlike the UK chief Scientist who I heard in a car crash of an interview on BBC radio 4 I believe in the precautionary principle, these and other chemicals are not sustainable in the long term (or short term) and we will have to learn to do without them safe or not.  Is it good stewardship of God’s creation to spray something toxic around, I think not.

Neil

1) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/181841/pb13937-neonicotinoid-bees-20130326.pdf.pdf

2) http://ejournal.vudat.msu.edu/index.php/mmg445/article/viewFile/168/116

3) http://www.monbiot.com/2013/04/29/2662/

Posted in Food, Peak oil, Practical low carbon living | Leave a comment

Can organic farming feed the world?

Posted on April 29, 2013 by admin

This is a question that comes up on a regular basis in any discussion about organic farming – and its a good question.  The usual assumption is that this is a rhetorical question – of course it can’t!  How could a system of food production which eschews the use of chemical fertilizers hope to produce the same yield as conventional farming?  However, scratch the surface of the issue and things start to look a little different:  The truth is we are not really feeding the word today.  Despite full-on commercial farming techniques used in many parts of the world, something like a billion people suffer hunger and food shortages on a regular basis.  Although at present a poor harvest in one of the major food-producing regions of the world is balanced up by production from other areas, were we to have a series of below-par harvests across several regions, we could be in trouble.  The high price of wheat and other agricultural commodities in recent years is one indication that the era of massive over-production is over.  So here follows a few key points that should be considered in this debate:

  • organic food is often derided as being poncey “pesticide-free food for the concerned middle classes”, but it is in fact sustainably-produced food, based on a system of rules, regulations and guidelines which are designed to ensure that food is grown in a planet-friendly way.
  • Yes, the headline yield from organic farming is lower than what can be achieved by full-on conventional techniques, BUT in terms of energy efficiency, organic substantially outperforms conventional production, i.e. it produces more calories of food per calorie of energy input.  In terms of this blog which examines the implications of future energy supplies, we know we are facing an energy constrained future, and therefore a system of farming which produces more food from less inputs must have a significant part to play.
  • Substantial amounts of cereals, soya and other products are consumed by livestock to produce meat, eggs and dairy products – an inefficient use of resources.  If we reduced the amount of meat in our diet, or switched to eating grass-fed beef and lamb instead of cereal-fed pork and chicken, this would substantially reduce the pressure on global food supplies.
  • Large acreages globally are used to grow tobacco and crops used to produce alcohol.  Reduced smoking and alcohol consumption would boost the land available for food production.

So can organic farming feed the world?  I don’t think that organic certification will increase much beyond it’s current acreage, however the techniques that are part of organic production will, I believe, be increasingly seen to be the answer to many of the problems we face:  Better use of organic material to improve soils; use of green manure crops to fix nitrogen and reduce leaching; mixed farms with mutually-beneficial interactions between different enterprises; direct relationships between the producer and consumers of food.  In the future we will very likely be eating less meat, more seasonal produce, more local produce, and most importantly food we have produced ourselves – in gardens, on allotments, and in a thousand other places urban or rural.  And if the world’s 1.7 billion Christians led the way by doing that now, it would make an incredible difference to our food landscape.

Andy

Posted in Food | Leave a comment

One thing we have learnt this week

Posted on April 26, 2013 by admin

I was going to write something about GM which has been in the news with two or three small stories this week.  However, a post Andy has written will go up tomorrow and this has some relevance to that debate and I intend to blog on this in the near future.

There has been some more news on the proposed new nuclear power station at Hinckley point this week.  On the face of it the deal looks close to collapse.  EDF originally said they could build new nuclear without subsidy in 2007/8.  Since then things have steadily changed.  Now they want consumers to pay 10p/unit for 40 years, the treasury wants nearer 8p (both are way over the wholesale price of electricity).  There are also rumours of other demands, such as money for electricity they could have produced and some kind of guarantee that if a future government changes its mind they will get compensation.  There are also murmurs that the government would stump up cash if there are cost overruns (very likely).  At the moment the latest rumours are that the Chinese might come in.  Some people are very unhappy about this for security reasons.  Another rumour doing the rounds is that even if Hinckley C gets the go-ahead this will be the only one.  Meanwhile my solar system gets 25 years of FIT, and new systems 20.  In 5 years PV and on-shore wind won’t need any subsidy.  Nuclear always will.

Neil

Posted in One thing we have learnt this week | Leave a comment

Is it possible to run an economy on renewables?

Posted on April 23, 2013 by admin

Today I read that Portugal produced 70% of its energy from renewables in the 1st quarter.  This is a dramatic increase.  Is it possible to run a modern developed economy totally on renewable resources as its set up today?  We obviously covered this in our book.  This is part of what we said.

“In our opinion, resource constraints will force globalisation into reverse, to be replaced by extreme localisation. There is no simple substitute for the oil which keeps the ships, planes and lorries moving goods around our globalised economy.”

The problem is there is a lot more than to energy than electricity.  There is confusion in the articles about this news-story, most them describe electricity but talk about energy.  To run an economy entirely on renewables means renewable heat, renewable transport and renewable materials (like plastics) in addition to electricity.  As we described in “No oil in the lamp”, this is a much more tricky proposition.  Using energy demand now taken from David Mackay’s book “Sustainable energy without the hot air” and making reasonable assumptions on what the UK could produce from the governments 2050 pathway analysis  (both expressed as kWh/per/person) we found a gap.  This energy  gap was about the size caused by what David Mackay calls “stuff”, this means material goods.  In our view (expressed in our book) “stuff” being oil based is not replaceable.  In our view neither is a lot of transportation.  Not having much “stuff” would roughly plug the gap for the UK.  [Mackay has done analysis for the US as well in the same way in the book.]  As Christians we think this is where the bible comes in as we wrote;

“The most challenging question is, should we use renewable energy to continue our current, highly energy-dependent lifestyle?  Our view is that we should not.  The reasons for this are very simple.  Access to cheap energy has allowed us to do great ecological and social damage to ourselves.  It has made us more insular, being increasingly cut-off from our fellow human beings (despite or perhaps because of easy foreign travel and electronic communications), disconnected from nature and materialistic.  Even if we had plentiful cheap renewable energy we would use this to do other harm to our shared planet.  We realise this is an unpalatable message (perhaps impossible for a politician to voice).  But at the same time it is one that fits in very well with many passages in scripture, one example being Matthew 6v19-20:  “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal “.  In the remainder of this book, we examine how Christians can face the challenges and opportunities that will come our way in the next few years, as the energy crunch starts to take hold.”

Neil

Posted in Renewables | Leave a comment

Population

Posted on April 22, 2013 by admin

“In 2012 the Royal Society published a report “People and the planet” which looks at the whole area of sustainability, natural ecosystems, finite resources and economic growth.  It makes a number of general recommendations which fit in with much of what is written above (alternative ways of measuring GDP, alternative economic models such as that suggested by Herman Daly, consumers paying the (currently externalised) costs of pollution and the need for the rich developed countries to reduce consumption to allow others to increase theirs).  There are two recommendations that have not featured elsewhere:  The first is the idea of a circular economy, which is one where almost everything is recycled.  The second is that of addressing population growth.

We have not space to cover all their arguments on population but we would recommend the reader looks at the Royal Society report, because it is an excellent primer on this issue.  Most environmentalists have avoided the issue population until recently for a variety of reasons.  In recent years this has changed with two high-profile thinkers, Jonathan Porritt and George Monbiot, taking diametrically opposite views.  These are summarised by Monbiot’s “Population growth is not a problem – it’s among those who consume the least.” and Jonathan Porritt’s belief that the earth has a finite “carrying capacity”.  The global population currently is in the order of 7 Billion, with projected future growth in a range of 8.1 to 10.6 Billion people, although there are some estimates that it could go far higher.  No one really knows what population the Earth could support (“carrying capacity”) and estimates of this figure tend to depend on which side of the argument above you are on.  However, the rate of population increase has declined since its peak in the 1960s, as has mortality.  This fertility drop has largely been achieved by the education of women, alongside the increased availability of contraception, also more controversially by sterilization and abortion.  The Royal Society essentially side with Jonathan Porritt.  The problem is both sides are sort of correct.  We need to reduce the global population for environmental and resource reasons. However, given the urgency of climate change and resource depletion, the policy levers are extremely limited.”

From “No oil in the lamp” chapter 7.

Posted in Book | Leave a comment

Valerie on food and faith

Posted on April 22, 2013 by admin

Check out Valerie Comer’s blog for an interesting look at food and faith.

Posted in other blogs | Leave a comment

One thing we have learnt this week

Posted on April 19, 2013 by admin

Is what’s left of our oil and gas overvalued?  This is what Nicolas Stern and others (even analysts from HSBC seem to agree) think.  The theory goes that the world will act on climate change accept that it cannot burn all the remaining reserves and move away from gas and oil.  This means what’s left is not worth nearly as much.  Therefore there maybe another financial crash.  The almighty big assumption is we act rationally (from the environmental view) and do this.  At the moment despite a huge increase in renewables the world is not making a very good job of cutting emissions.  The IEA have reported that energy carbon intensity has dropped only very slightly in 20 years.

So why is this?  One suggestion made in a book by Mike Berners-Lee and Duncan Clark (link above to article by them) is that the countries cutting emissions at home are exporting coal, oil and gas elsewhere.  This must be partly true, but even China is making strenuous efforts to switch to renewables.  To me it doesn’t completely explain the dichotomy.  I also don’t completely accept their dismissal of peak oil (although they actually don’t completely dismiss it).

There are three possible ways thing could go in my view.

1) Stern et al. are right in 2015 there is a legally binding climate agreement and oil and gas prices crash.

2) We go on burning all the unconventional stuff and fry ourselves.  All the unconventional stuff has to work in this scenario.  What I mean be that has to take less energy to extract than we think it will.

3) Somewhere in between 1) and 2).  Conventional oil production has peaked (this is true of all three scenarios).   The oil price continues ever upwards.  Unconventional oil and gas depletes the remaining easily extracted oil and gas faster, unconventional oil and gas having a very low energy return (giving a price feedback loop).  Whether this scenario heads off a 2 degree rise depends on how rising prices force lifestyle change.  There is some modest evidence to back up lifestyle changes in 3) with driving and fuel sales having apparently peaked in the UK and US.

Neil

Posted in One thing we have learnt this week | Leave a comment

The little green book

Posted on April 18, 2013 by admin

The little green book is new from a new publisher called “Wide Margin” books who published “Carnival Kingdom” which I will be reviewing soon.  This tiny book is written as a response to the state the planet is in as a call to environmental action.  The author Dr Jonathan Ingleby starts by giving a bit of background to as he sees it the main environmental problem of climate change (although the oil running out is mentioned) and then spends a large part of the pamphlet detaining the excuses we make to do nothing and a response to these excuses.  These are all as true about climate change as of peak oil or any other environmental area and each objection is skilfully demolished.  Ingleby’s conclusion is we need a new economy and that new economy is the kingdom of God.  This is an original and interesting response to climate change and one I would like to see expanded to a book.

The last part of the book is made up of a green checklist drawn up by Kevin and Ros Durrant.  This covers all areas of the environment and has some great suggestions.  This is a great purchase for those Christians who are just starting to think about the environment.  It would make a great companion to our book for home-group study.

Neil

Posted in Book, Reviews | Leave a comment

Musing out loud

Posted on April 18, 2013 by admin

This blog is mentioned as a link worth reading on a blog by Brad Brookins. We are honoured and will put a link up to his blog which is worth checking out. He seems to be a pastor and farmer.

Neil

Posted in other blogs | Leave a comment