Will the End of Oil Be the End Of Food?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

By Jason Mark, AlterNet

http://alternet.org/envirohealth/41023/

<snip>

Of course, you won't find any oil on your dinner plate, but petroleum and other fossil fuels are inside of every bite you eat. About one-fifth of all U.S. energy use goes into the food system. The synthetic nitrogen fertilizers that are essential for high crop yields are a byproduct of natural gas. Gasoline and diesel fuels power the combines that rumble through the grain fields. Countless kilowatts of electricity are burned up in the factories that process all of the packaged goods that line the supermarket shelves. And then there's the gasoline required simply to get food to market. We now have a globalized food system, one in which the typical American meal travels 1,500 miles from farm to fork. Organic products -- though they may have a more sustainable veneer -- are in many respects no different; 10 percent of organic products come from abroad. Without oil, we would all be on one harsh diet.

"We've created an agricultural system where, on average, for every energy of food calorie we produce, we need to expend about 10 calories of fossil fuels," Heinberg said.

Such an imbalance would not be worrisome if there were an inexhaustible supply of oil. But, as every child learns in elementary science class, petroleum is a nonrenewable resource. A heated debate is under way about when that resource will begin to decline. Some say that we have already passed the summit of peak oil and point to a leveling of global petroleum production as proof. The U.S. government argues that we have decades before oil extraction begins to decline. Others calculate that we will hit the peak oil mark sometime in the next 10 years. Regardless of when exactly oil production starts to drop, it's clear that in this century humanity will have to learn to live without cheap, abundant oil.

What this means for our food system is also up for debate. At the very least, costlier oil will lead to more expensive food, especially for processed and packaged goods. At the very worst, peak oil could seriously disrupt agriculture, especially in highly industrialized nations like the United States, where food systems are heavily reliant on oil.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

1. No, just the end of cheap, healthy

food that can support the huge number of worthless mouths into which it is stuffed.

The planet will correct for this.

You and I may not survive, but some will.

[Teaser]

2. wow, everyone, It's God posting

Look everyone, God's decided to post here. And he's declaring billions of people WORTHLESS.

Thanks God, for showing up and letting us know who's worth what!

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

4. Well, all humor aside, I just call 'em like I see 'em

if that makes me Godlike in your eyes, I feel sorry for you.

[skids]

6. From a purely ecological perspective, many are.

If you step back from the ideals of humanitarianism and consider things from the perspective of cold ecology, the majority of homo sapiens contribute nothing in the way of diversifying life and expanding the potential of the biosphere, and consume and/or accidentally destroy a lot of resources in the act.

That's not playing god, it's simple math. Mankind at this point is no steward.

That's not to say there is not potential worth in each individual, but a means to realize it has not been introduced.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

7. Thank you

See... no God... just science.

Lol

[Teaser]

28. ridiculous

Worth is an intrinsically human concept. It makes no sense to assess it from any other perspective. To attempt to guage the worth of a human with respect to the environment is to use a non-existent measure. The earth's ecosystems do not care, do not impute value, and do not assess worth. Humans do. So when you call something or someone worthless, you are doing so from a human perspective.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

3. "Worthless mouths?" That wouldn't be anything

...like "useless eaters" would it?

[TreasonousBastard]

12. I've been saying that for years, although...

not very loudly.

Aside from philosophical thoughts about all humans being equal, worthy, and such, the simple fact is that the central economic problem is finding productive work for the expanding population so they can feed themselves. Or at least that there are enough productive people to feed the unproductive.

If I say much more I will get into trouble, but no, "reducing the surplus population" is not an option. At least not for us to try.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

15. I did not say that we should try it, only that it WILL

happen, one way or the other.
Nature abhors a vacuum, nor will it tolerate extreme pressure.

It has happened before.

[TreasonousBastard]

17. I didn't say you did...

sorry if I didn't make that clear.

Anyway, our demise has been predicted many times over the years, most such predictions ending up wrong. And even after enormous calamities, we managed to bounce back.

Our survival instincts and abilities are prodigious, and barring something really dreadful like a huge asteroid hit, we won't be set back for long by starvation, the Yellowstone caldera blowing, global sea rise, or any other foreseeable catastrophe.

Someone will find a way to make a barely nutritious goop out of seawater and desert sand.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

26. "reducing the surplus population," not an option...

...Now if somebody could convince Cheney.

[pooja]

5. This is why it is super important to training everyone how to do the

things our grandparents did. And it is important to maintain community gardens. We are going to be forced at some point to stop eating "fast", and come back to our roots. There's already a surge in consumers demanding healthier foods, organic foods, foods without preservatives and dyes. Americans are becoming fat. It is healthier to eat what you make and preportion it out yourself. I don't see Walmarts in the future. If we can get national healthcare, I predict smaller specialty shops, people working for themselves on a whole, and people taking more time to spend with their families. Most people are happy with bringing in enough money to pay their bills and have some left overs for savings and vacations. Most people don't need to be millionairs to be happy. They appreciate what the world has to offer, not what they can take from it.

[xxqqqzme]

10. Two things everyone needs to do NOW

1. Buy a gun
2 till up your back yard and plant a garden!

been telling people that for over a year.

[pooja]

11. Unfortunately, I don't have a backyard... not everyone does

Especially in cities... that's why I am saying to invest in community gardens.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

16. No need to buy a gun. There will be plenty

laying around after a while

[skids]

27. snicker.

Yeah that thought had occurred to me.

[Bushwick Bill]

8. Eating fossil fuels.

Just read this article.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html

These sites are always good for some laughs.
http://www.eroei.com/solutions/population.html
http://www.dieoff.org/

[Duke Newcombe]

9. Correction....petroleum products ARE...

...actually used IN foodstuffs, like extracts, emulsifiers, and other chemical preservatives. Yet another reason to eat more naturally...

Duke

[applegrove]

13. In Africa..science has come up with a tree that pulls nitrogen out of

the air and leaches it into the soil where plants can process it. I think the solution will be like that. Think of all the science to come.

Genetically modified wheat saved Russia & Canada. So too will modification to other sources of nitrogen ..proved safe and not involving suicide seeds.

I think corn uses lots of oil. That is typically an American thing though. In Canada the cattle eat mostly pasture grass & hay (we have lots of grass --shh don't tell Bush we have a comparative advantage in grass or he will slap a duty on our cows). And I don't think farmer are running around fertilizing all there ranch land... they just fertilize a concentrated irrigated area that grows specific crops for the specific health needs of their cattle. But this would be much less than 1% of their ranch.

[brokensymmetry]

14. Expect 5.5E+09 deaths.

Seriously. Between the green revolution and humankind's
exponential growth, we have used oil to accomplish a large
population overshoot. (Read Catton's "Overshoot" for
details - it's a classic). As oil runs out, the overshoot
will correct. Stir in some ecological change, and you
have the basis for the death of billions by famine.

When will this begin? No one really knows - but I'd
wager we'll see the beginnings by 2015. It may well be
that governments around the world will be faced with
deciding which nations get fed - and which do not.

And someone, somewhere, will decide who is a "useless eater"
and who is not.

[bhikkhu]

24. I hope it is true the "beginnings" are 9 years off...

but six of the past seven years have been bad, and I would guess the beginnings are already behind us.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1325467.ece

[no_hypocrisy]

18. How much oil would it take to produce Soylent Green? n/t

[Nikia]

19. There should be governemnt funding to solve the problem soon

Before the market does and various numbers of people die because of this.
Some things that I think will happen regardless though is that agriculturual methods will return back to the tried and true methods such as crop rotation. The global economy will decline and the local economy will grow. More people will learn how to grow their own food and do so. Alternative sources of energy may be developed including more efficient (than ethanol) biofuels. The balance of people's diets may change, more plant food and perhaps eating things like insects that currently aren't eaten in many parts of the world. Some parts of the country and world will not approach substainibilty no matter what is done, making it impractical for high densities of people to live in such places as Arizona.

[bhikkhu]

25. wonderfully stated sentiment.

You are probably right in substance and intent.

But I just imagine a group on the levees in NO as they broke - "there should be government funding to solve this problem soon".

Or people in line at another unemployment office where another US manufacturer has closed another factory - "there should be government funding to solve this problem soon".

Or any number of other situations...point being: government solves nothing.

[yurbud]

20. ask Cuba. Harper's did an article on what happened when soviet oil

was cut off

[yurbud]

21. we could power the tractors with biodiesel until we figure out how to

replace the petroleum in fertilizers.

It is not an all or nothing deal but a matter of mixing technologies and transitioning.

[yurbud]

22. We have such gigantic crop surpluses that we can dump them on other

countries and they can't grow anything and make a profit. If we just replaced the petroleum fuel used in ag vehicles with biodiesel, which would be pretty easy since most ag stuff is diesel, it would ease any pressure on petroleum for fertiziler.

[yurbud]

23. Is artificial scarcity the new corporate scarcity? We are eventually

running out of oil, but corporations are doing everything they can to INCREASE our dependence and DECREASE availability. Additionally, talk of "water wars" and the impact of oil scarcity on food--and the consolidation of agriculture into a handful of corporations just like oil puts us at risk from corporate terrorism.