Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Will the End of Oil Be the End Of Food?

By Jason Mark, AlterNet. Posted August 31, 2006.


American agriculture is fatally dependent on oil. A few forward-thinking farmers are trying to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels.
083106story4
Advertisement

Farmer Richard Randall doesn't believe in the notion of "peak oil," the argument that civilization will soon experience an acute -- and irreversible -- petroleum scarcity that will fundamentally alter our way of life. A 61-year-old wheat and sorghum grower from Scott City, Kan., Randall says he's seen high oil prices before, and that today's expensive petroleum is just part of a natural market cycle that will eventually adjust itself, leading to lowered fuel costs.

"I think there's plenty of oil there," Randall said recently. "I feel that if we allow the marketplace to work without interruption in the supply, we will find a level. It's not going to be as low as it was, but it will come down. We do need to produce oil where we can."

Randall may not be certain when oil prices will level out, but it's abundantly clear to him that $70/barrel petroleum is taking a huge bite out of his business. Nearly every part of his farming operation is being impacted. The price for the diesel fuel that runs the tractors and trucks on his 4,500-acre farm have more than tripled in the last four years, rising from 80 cents per gallon to close to $3. Fertilizer prices are also up sharply. Since synthetic fertilizers are made from natural gas, they too are impacted by higher fossil fuel prices; the cost of fertilizer has gone from about $160 per ton to $460 per ton in the last three years. Smaller, organic growers are also feeling a pinch from costlier petroleum. The price for the plastic drip irrigation tape commonly used on organic fruit and vegetable farms is up 20 percent from two years ago.

Because farmers operate in a commodity market where buyers and brokers dictate the price of the harvest, high oil costs have been particularly painful. Unlike other businesses, farms have no way to pass their rising costs on to consumers.

"All of our expenses have gone up pretty well, but we can't put on a surcharge for fuel like everyone else can." Randall said. "It's made it a lot tougher."

Tomorrow's crises

For farmers like Randall, today's challenges may be tomorrow's crises. The problems of coping with high oil prices reveal how utterly dependent our food production system is on nonrenewable fuels. As long as oil is plentiful, that dependence isn't a concern. But in some circles fears are growing that if global petroleum production begins a steady decline, our entire food system will be strained, testing our ability to feed ourselves.

"How dependent on oil is our food system?" Richard Heinberg, a leading "peak oil" scholar and the author of The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies said in an interview. "Enormously dependent. Fatally dependent, I would say."

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.


Digg!

Jason Mark lives and works on an organic farm in California. He is the coauthor, with Kevin Danaher, of "Insurrection: Citizen Challenges to Corporate Power."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
STUPID!!!
Posted by: TT2 on Aug 31, 2006 12:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lets just INVADE IRAN, so we can have even MORE OIL! We spend about a trillion dollars on "defence" anyway, so it should by all means be a peace of cake=PP

problem solved!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: STUPID!!! Posted by: quissy
Bushies/Cuba
Posted by: rsaxto on Aug 31, 2006 12:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since the Bushies will never take farming lessons from Cuba or from local farmers here we have another potent reason to impeach them for they are totally out of touch with what the USA needs to do to survive and prosper. Killing people in other countries is totally the wrong path.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wind power
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Aug 31, 2006 1:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not suitable for every farm due to wind regimes, but it offers part of a solution at least.

Put one or more on each farm and add some sort of fuel cell system and tractors for the turbines to charge. Sounds like a good basis for a nation program.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wind power Posted by: Sushi
*headdesks*
Posted by: Samantha Vimes on Aug 31, 2006 3:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to Ferd Hoefner of the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, last year farmers in North Dakota sold a large portion of their corn harvest to ethanol processors. But that left local cattle ranchers short of grain to feed their cows, and so they had to import corn from Canada to beef up their herds, corn that was more expensive that the locally grown stuff.
And more fuel was consumed through importing it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: *headdesks* Posted by: Sushi
David Morris
Posted by: dmorris on Aug 31, 2006 4:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The title of this article is misleading. We need to be careful not to conflate oil with fossil fuels. American agriculture depends far more on natural gas than on oil(i.e. in the making of fertilizers). The price of oil could double and it would have little impact on the production costs of grains, for example. Perhaps the author is thinking that the end of fossil fuels would mean the end of food. That is true. It would also be the end of virtually every aspect of human society. Remember what we use to make the wind turbines and solar cells.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

two words: NUCLEAR POWER
Posted by: rebel_pig on Aug 31, 2006 4:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Drop the pseudoLeft pseudoEnvironmentalism, that is for yuppies and wannabees. Go with nuclear and cut immigration (legal and illegal) to cut population growth and save the world.

Free your mind from the upper class ruling propaganda.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: two words: NUCLEAR POWER Posted by: Swatopluk
» RE: two words: NUCLEAR POWER Posted by: nickptar
» RE: two words: NUCLEAR POWER Posted by: Bbear41
» RE: two words: NUCLEAR POWER Posted by: aebartle
» RE: two words: NUCLEAR POWER Posted by: nickptar
» "Pseudo" Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: two words: NUCLEAR POWER Posted by: Ulfhethner
» RE: two words: NUCLEAR POWER Posted by: Artaraxl
» RE: two words: NUCLEAR POWER Posted by: Ulfhethner
look at it this way
Posted by: Mattyboy on Aug 31, 2006 4:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the food runs out at least the obesity epedemic will be curtailed. Americans eat to much anyway, whats the problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who needs oil?
Posted by: Colin on Aug 31, 2006 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just read about this and thought it was the right place to post it.

Apparently "Every year, each square kilometre of hot desert receives solar energy equivalent to 1.5 million barrels of oil. Multiplying by the area of deserts world-wide, this is nearly a thousand times the entire current energy consumption of the world."

I would be very interested to know if there were any dedicated sciency types out there that can verify the claims of this company, claiming sell half decent solar equipment. Check out the company's website here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who needs oil? Posted by: Cap'n Solar
» RE: Who needs oil? Posted by: anniedine
Got 45 Minutes?
Posted by: NoPCZone on Aug 31, 2006 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Google Video of a UK TV program by Robert Newman called the History of Oil. Entertaining and informative.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7374585792978336967

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Got Another Hour?
Posted by: NoPCZone on Aug 31, 2006 6:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Australian TV Report on Peak Oil viewable online.
First Broadcast: 10 July 2006.
The era of cheap oil may be over and a growing number of analysts predict production is about to peak before significantly falling behind demand. Jonathan Holmes investigates.

http://abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20060710/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OMG Farmer Richard Randall is a freakin genius
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Aug 31, 2006 6:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe he should run for president?

He's right about one thing... prices go down. They go to a new record high, and then they go down. lol. What an idiot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Vegetarianism/Global warming
Posted by: brunowe on Aug 31, 2006 7:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think this article is an interesting indirect comment to those who advocate vegetarianism as a method of cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Food production is more dependent on SOIL than on OIL!
Posted by: fool-on-the-hill on Aug 31, 2006 7:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And the hype about "bio-fuels" overlooks the fundamental fact of agriculture. Every acre of arable soil used to grow crops for fuel is an acre NOT growing crops for food.

Most people (even AlterNet bloggers) seem to take SOIL for granted. There's an inexaustable supply of dirt, right?

Well, there may be an inexaustable supply of dirt, but SOIL is another matter all together. Arable soil, meaning ground that will support crop production, is the fundamental basis for all food production on the planet earth. Countries without it are poor and starving; countries richly blessed with it are wealthy and healthy (if they can avoid the downside of abundant food, i.e. obesity).

Most folks think farmers are comical, and dirt is unimportant --- but arable soil, and those who cultivate it, are the material cause of all U.S. wealth (and health). Trying to solve the oil shortage by turning to bio-fuels is like using your grocery money to pay off your car! Either approach will risk DEATH to preserve comfort. Are we really that lazy and weak?!

By the way, the great plains of the American mid-west --- you know, that "bread basket of the world" that produces more grain than any other region of its size? --- here's a little factoid about that "dirt":

WHEN THE FIRST SETTLERS CAME INTO THAT REGION, THE TOP SOIL WAS 10 TO 12 FEET DEEP. AFTER 100 YEARS, THE SOIL IS NOW LESS THAN 3 FEET DEEP, AND (despite great effort on the part of modern farmers) STILL SHRINKING.

Note: I am an enthusiastic supporter of technology to produce bio-fuel from food crop debris, stalks and husks and corncobs, etc. I also support using old cooking oil, or making methane from animal dung, etc.

What I'm worried about is switching food crops to fuel crops without making any other changes --- like to our wasteful consumption habits, for instance.

Curing our obesity problem is a fine goal. Producing famine to power our SUVs is worse than stupid; IT IS INSANE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE:P.S. to Oregoncharles Posted by: Sushi
Stop Breeding
Posted by: leemiller38 on Aug 31, 2006 7:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every abortion or successful contraception in the U.S. has saved about 1600 barrels of oil, the amount used in a human lifetime. Hey, abortion is pro-life since the lifetime of civilization is extended by fuel conservation. Of course it would be good to make muscle cars and Hummers historic anomalies ASAP too.

There is insufficient effort and money expended to stop population growth in the world which is the driver of all these resource and environmental issues. Stop dealing with the symptoms of the problem. Get a vasectomy or tubal ligation, give money to Planned Parenthood or other contraceptive providers and save the planet!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Stop Breeding Posted by: TT2
» RE: Stop Breeding Posted by: anniedine
» RE: Stop Breeding Posted by: leemiller38
» RE: Stop Breeding Posted by: jwg
» RE: Stop Breeding Posted by: leemiller38
» Bring Back Caste System!!! Posted by: SpreadingANUS
We don't have solar power because Congress refused to deed the sun to EXXON.
Posted by: fool-on-the-hill on Aug 31, 2006 7:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Solar power was moving right along back in the late 70s. Then in the early 80s (I don't remember the exact timeframe, and don't care to take time to look it up), a Bill was introduced in the U.S. Congress to allow EXXON, the leading researcher in solar energy, to get a "perpetual" patent on solar technology. In other words, Big Oil would develop solar energy, if they could then charge you FOREVER for the sunlight falling into your back yard.

When the proposal was defeated, EXXON sidelined its research. Worse, they withdrew funding for academic research into solar power, while continuing to hire the most promising new graduates (those capable of continuing the research) and putting them to work on Big Oil projects, instead.

Result? Solar power has languished, and is now generally considered "unfeasible" --- not for any scientific reason, but simply from neglect and disinformation.

(Another reason to deplore the unhealthy dependency of the academic community on trans-national corporations --- but that's a subject for another thread.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I love it! (laughter) Posted by: fool-on-the-hill
Solutions, Not Hype
Posted by: David V on Aug 31, 2006 7:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Peak Oil scenario that has us all living in caves and hunting caribou in the deserted canyons of downtown St. Paul is fatuous and unrealistic.

The energy source of the future WILL be nuclear - more specifically fast neutron reactors and - eventually, fusion reactors.

Fast neutron reactor technology is a vast improvement to the age-old problems associated with conventional light-water nuclear reactors: highly-toxic nuclear waste, the use of spent fuel in the production of nuclear weapons and the ridiculously inefficient use of U-235 and U-238.

The spent fuel from fast neutron reactors can be recycled use a process called pyrometallurgical processing and re-used to power additional fast neutron reactors. The use of fast neutron reactors and pyrometallurgical processing will transform our several-decade supply of uranium ore into a supply capable of lasting many centuries.

At the end of this processing/re-use cycle, the nuclear material lacks any plutonium that can be used for weapons making, and the remaining nuclear elements become inert in a matter of a hundred years rather than the current 10,000 years. The sheer volume, thanks to the pyrometallurgical recycling process, is reduced by 90% over the current processes.

Bottom line? We're not running out of "energy". We're running out of cheap oil, that is true. We can either throw our hands up and go find a cave (and hope that a brown bear hasn't already claimed it), or we can use our God-given brains to create cleaner and safer energy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Solutions, Not Hype Posted by: Swatopluk
» RE: Solutions, Not Hype Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: Solutions, Not Hype Posted by: northerner
» RE: Solutions, Not Hype Posted by: oregoncharles
re: Who Needs Oil?
Posted by: David V on Aug 31, 2006 8:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like the idea of CSP, but consider the following bit of bitter irony:

Of the world's sub-tropical deserts (the type being necessary for large-scale CSP), 81% of them are in the Middle East (Arabian Desert) and Africa (Saharan and Kalahari Deserts).

The EU would be entirely dependent on these power generating nations. The country that is likely to benefit the most from this is Australia, with 10% of the world's sub-tropical deserts lying within its own borders.

The US, with 3%, could very well see a benefit from this technology, but it's doubtful that it can be a large factor in energy independence for this country.

Whether it is oil, sunlight or magic fairy dust, relying on energy from nations that are ruled by despots and dictators is not going to solve our problems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: re: Who Needs Oil? Posted by: symcokid
» RE: re: Who Needs Oil? Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: re: Who Needs Oil? Posted by: Logic's Edge
Lets Not Promote More Denial
Posted by: StuartH on Aug 31, 2006 8:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is bad enough that the Bush Administration, Oil industry apologists and the media are promoting Denial about the need for energy alternatives. Intelligent people don't need to promote that agenda.

Since Reagan took office and stripped Carter's solar panels off the White House roof, getting any traction for even discussing the various issues involved in the future of energy and the environment have been pretty well stifled. This has meant that good old American innovation has been suppressed for all these years. Luckily, it seems to be leaking out from under the lid.

The sad thing about individual farmers who take innovative action is that they should be supported by the same level of subsidy oil companies are afforded, with national political priorities providing whatever incentives and encouragements are possible.

Nuclear energy should be considered with a lot of skepticism. For one thing, the argument is largely not about energy, but about centralizing our response to energy so that large scale investors are benefitted.

The reason that a big oil and big corporation mindset that dominates our government currently is unable to respond correctly to the need for alternatives is that they are stuck in thinking that everything must be centralized. Central control means centralized investment, management - and profit.

The key to this is going back to the America of our great grandparents, which was very decentralized. Individual families and local communities solved local problems and did not have remote, centralized corporate structures to depend on.

It is largely this tendency to depend on some higher, bigger, and supposedly more well-equipped entity for solutions that we need to get away from.

Sure, the corporations will always be there and they do have competencies that vast funding pools create, but this phenomenon was really created by cheap transportation and energy in the last century.

Most people are so used to consumer society comforts that they can not conceive of a society which is more local, and in which more responsibility for everything from good growing to voting is centered with individuals and families.

America was once a country where local communities were the strength of our society. The issue on the table, whether you look at environmental, resource sustainability or energy issues - is whether we can be again, to any extent.

If we keep on going, and keep on promoting denial, we will possibly see what a die-back of billions in the human population looks like, and out-of-control social chaos before we get into the 22nd century.

We need to train our collective intelligence on facing these issues honestly and courageously so we can have a chance to effectuate some mitigation and problem solving.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Peak Oil is a Hoax
Posted by: rwa on Aug 31, 2006 9:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
U.S. media have oddly avoided an honest discussion of heavy oil. Read the BBC International( not posted at BBC America) story carefully with regard to "peak oil".
excerpt:

Chavez rules out return to cheap oil
By Meirion Jones
Producer, BBC Newsnight

If you thought high oil prices were just a blip think again - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has ruled out any return to the era of cheap oil.

Mr Chavez has spent some of the oil money on social projects
In an interview with BBC Newsnight’s Greg Palast, Mr Chavez - who is due to host the Opec meeting on 1 June in Caracas - said he would ask the oil cartel to set $50 a barrel as the long term level.

During the 1990s the price of oil had hovered around the $20 mark falling as low as $10 a barrel in early 1999.

“We’re trying to find an equilibrium. The price of oil could remain at the low level of $50. That’s a fair price it’s not a high price,” Mr Chavez said.

He will have added clout at this Opec meeting.

Analysis by the US Department of Energy (DoE) - seen by Newsnight - shows that at $50 a barrel Venezuela - not Saudi Arabia - will have the biggest oil reserves in Opec.

Venezuela has vast deposits of extra-heavy oil in the Orinoco. Traditionally these have not been counted because at $20 a barrel they were too expensive to exploit - but at $50 a barrel melting them into liquid petroleum becomes extremely profitable.

The DoE report shows that at today’s prices Venezuela’s oil reserves are bigger than those of the entire Middle East - including Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Iran and Iraq.

In the future Venezuela won’t have any more oil - but that’s in the 22nd Century

Hugo Chavez
The US agency also identifies Canada as another future oil superpower.

Venezuela’s deposits alone could extend the oil age for another 100 years.

The DoE estimates that the Venezuelan government controls 1.3 trillion barrels of oil - more than the entire declared oil reserves of the rest of the planet.

Mr Chavez told Newsnight that “Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world. In the future Venezuela won’t have any more oil - but that’s in the 22nd Century.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Peak Oil is a Hoax Posted by: Logic's Edge
Sustainable food and sustainable biofuel don't have to be mutually exclusive
Posted by: DioniMike on Aug 31, 2006 10:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not merely a choice between growing corn for Ethanol/biodiesel or corn for human/livestock food. There are fuel crops that will grow on nearly "non-arable" land, that 3 feet of soil another poster writes of--namely hemp is one of those crops. It can be used for innumerable fiber use, and the rest of the plant fermented for the Ethanol. Corn can still be grown on the better land to feed humans (feeding cows corn is environmentally wasteful---beef production is nearly as wasteful as oil production). Thus, opening up the ability for our farmers to grow hemp in the less desirable land (it will grow on craggy mountain tops, in ditches, etc) can help them become fuel self-sufficient and biopower their tractors/other machines to produce food crops. And they can sell the excess biofuel to us to reduce our need for liquified dinosaurs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Peak Oil might save the farmers
Posted by: oregoncharles on Aug 31, 2006 12:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Farmers have been in bad economic shape for as long as I can remember - that's more than forty years. The main, underlying reason is their heavy use of fossil fuels via tractors and sythetic fertilizers.

Go back to basics: a farm is essentially a very large solar collector. That's what plants live on. The only things farmers have to sell, SUSTAINABLY, are the sunlight and rain that fall on their land and their own labor. (The owner should be receiving a return to capital, as well, but that's somewhat theoretical and doesn't always go to the farmer.)

Consequently, any purchased input that substitutes for those resources will very likely reduce the NET income. NET income, remember is the only kind you get to keep. Or spend on yourself. Farmers have somehow been convinced to focus on the GROSS ("cash flow"), which is why they're going broke and the corporations they buy from are making out like bandits. No other business is told to increase production at all costs in the face of surpluses. Maybe the Extension Service isn't really working for the farmers.

These basics are the reason Amish farmers, who minimise their use of purchased inputs, often make as much on 60 acres as their neighbors make on 600. Or more. You just can't work thousands of acres with horses. Horses, of course, are not only solar powered but solar produced - by the farm. (Wendell Berry researched all this - I don't have the reference by me but I bet you can find it.)

Ultimately, of course, any real solution will take a LOT more farmers - and horses. Food will be more expensive, but also better and more secure. And farmers will return to relative prosperity, as before they got hooked on the oil drug (I'm actually talking about my own family's history, here).

All of this will be vastly more difficult and painful because our political system isn't allowed to address the problems proactively: that would interfere with the fossil fuel companies' exhorbitant profits.

The focus here is on farming, so I haven't addressed the population issue (someone else already did). But consider: the "developed" 20% of the world consumes 80% of the resources - and the present overall rate of consumption is leading to collapse. Ecologists call this "overshoot and collapse". It isn't going to be pretty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The Amish ... Posted by: AdamSelene40
The Third World is coming to America
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Aug 31, 2006 12:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So-called peak oil really means the end of cheap oil. For the past century the world has operated under oil glut conditions, and the major oil countries and companies have all collaborated to restrict supply in order to avoid price fluctuations. What is now happening (over about ten years span; we may be right in the middle) is a transition to oil limitation conditions. Once OPEC lifts all restrictions on pumping oil, you'll know we have arrived at the 'peak'. Fifty years after that, oil might actually become 'scarce'.

When using natural gas to make fertilizer, we are talking about taking nitrogen from the air, adding hydrogen atoms from methane (natural gas), with the products being ammonia (nitrogen) fertilizer and carbon dioxide. Many microbes also carry out this process (that's why legumes such as fava and alfalfa are were once heavily used as rotation crops, since their root microbes would enrich the soil with nitrogen). Just as with renewable energy, natural gas companies want to keep their fertilizer markets so they oppose biological organic fertilizers.

See http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/energy/

For those who say we are all going to starve without oil, just look at China, population 1.3 billion. The American population is 0.3 billion. Now, in 1999, the U.S. consumed approximately 1039 million tons of coal, 22,400 billion cubic feet of natural gas, and 7.125 billion barrels of oil (Dept of Energy stats). In that same year, China used 1.593 billion barrels of oil, 830 billion cubic feet of natural gas, and 1343 million tons of coal.

The main difference is that the US uses a lot of natural gas for electricity generation, while China depends heavily on polluting coal. China's population is over 4 times as large as the United States.

The central point here is this:
Per capita natural gas use in China is 638 cubic feet; in the US per capita use is a whopping 75,000 cubic feet. Per capita oil use was 1.2 barrels (China) and 23.8 barrels (USA); per capita coal use was 1.03 tons (China) and 3.46 tons (USA). To sum all that up, the average US citizen uses 11 times as much energy as the average Chinese citizen. (and about 150 times as much energy as your average sub-Saharan villager).

Somehow the Chinese manage to feed themselves (total China food imports are only 2% of their total production) under these conditions. Data at http://www.cslforum.org/usa.htm and http://www.cslforum.org/china.htm. Even if all energy imports to the US were ended tonight, we'd still be able to feed ourselves for the next 50 years using domestic fossil fuel supplies.

Of course, in Chinese villages, to stay warm in the winter they often use 'chicken manure generators' - under your hut, you dig a pit and fill it with chicken manure. As this ferments over the winter, methane and heat are produced which helps keep your hut warm, if smelly.

The US could have avoided regression towards a Third World status (look at Katrina and New Orleans!) if renewables had been pursued in the early 80's - but thanks to Schultz, Bush, Cheney, the Saudis and Kuwaitis, etc., that was put to an end. GW Bush Jr. would rather be the tinpot dictator of a slum than a citizen of a healthy democracy, so here we are.

Nuclear, by the way, is a dead end - the plants are ridiculously expensive, the uranium supply is limited, the hot waste and used reactors can't be safely disposed of, and nuclear reactors inevitably produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. There are engineering concerns like Bechtel who know they can make a lot of money off these construction projects (with taxpayer support); that's the only reason you still hear about nuclear power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree
Posted by: tdicks on Aug 31, 2006 12:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You seem to be well informed. There are many like the farmer in this article who have no real notion of what our oil supply situation looks like, but they just take it for granted and assume it will always flow as sure as the sun will rise.

We are being attacked on two fronts, the Big Oil companies that want to make the most out of every last drop of oil, and the consumer who can't and will refuse to fathom life without cheap oil. If you show them the facts on oil reserves, they will then say 'well, technology will save us'. They always neglect the fact that all of our advanced technology begins with millions of barrells of cheap oil. http://peakoil.illdill.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Special Period
Posted by: rayo on Aug 31, 2006 1:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although I think it is worthwhile to examine Cuba's response to scarce oil and commodities following the collapse of the Soviet Union, we shouldn't overlook the painful shortages that prompted this solution. Hunger was a very real problem in the early 1990s, particularly in Havana. I'm also a proponent of moving away from the industrial agriculture model, but we need to be realistic about the potential effects of this.

Incidentally, here in Kansas we have signs posted along the interstates that say how many people are fed by one Kansas farmer. Ten years ago, it was around 98. Now it is up to 120.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Special Period Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: The Special Period Posted by: pdqbach55
Food production is more dependent on soil than oil
Posted by: dkm on Aug 31, 2006 1:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here are some tidbits on this theme.

Lancaster County, PA, used to be the "Garden Spot of America," the highest nonirrigated agricultural producing county in the US. Now the farms have been turned into housing developments and the amount of agricultural production has decreased dramatically.

Dr. Norman Borlaug, the Nobel prize winner for the Green Revolution, gave a talk several years ago in which he pointed out that all the easily arable land is now in use. Any more land added to agricultural production will have to be marginal land, i.e., subject to low rainfall, high saline content, poor fertility (tropical rainforest), or other such constraint. In order to increase production, we will need to do more than just plow more land. Building on prime agriculture land is not a good idea.

I just finished RAGBRAI (look it up, desmoinesregister.com/ragbrai) where the Iowa Conservation Society had several presentations. In Iowa the depth of the topsoil has decreased to less than half of what it was a generation ago. I do not doubt that in other midwestern states, the situation is the same or worse.

We have to increase food production using the same amount of inputs (or less). Fertilizer, pesticides, etc. have their place, but typically they are over or underused because of lack of monitoring and knowledge about their use on the part of those applying them. Improved plant and animal varieties also have their place. Thanks to improved genetics it now takes 3 - 4 weeks to produce a broiler that once required 3 - 4 months. The typical milking herd now averages better than the best individual cows did 50 years ago. The amount of feed to pound of gain for egg production, pork production, poultry production have all decreased dramatically in the last generation. But there are limits that we are approaching. Somewhere and somehow, society has got to realize that cheap food is unrealistic and that building developments is NOT the highest land use. If the next generation is going to survive, we need to change a lot of our values regarding the use of resources. Land is a renewable resource if it is used to grow something. Once you build on it, it is nonrenewable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nature's way
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Aug 31, 2006 2:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
have we come so far that we've forgotten that farm animals used to work before we'd eat them? Even if all you grow is veggies,a mule team could do the job. we'd save the planet it's much needed oxygen.
What about diesel tractors running on waste veggie oil?
Have we really stopped being pracicle and become a horde of 'chicken littles' every time someone says there's a hick-up with oil? just think how big oil would react if instead of making a big deal out of a few greedy assholes loosing a paycheck,we just said," Cool ,we know some other ways".
Stop giving into the Fear induced programing of the Rich.
They are only out to see that they survive,not the rest of us.
Big Oil and it's by products have killed enough of our Ancestors, Fathers, Mothers, Siblings, Aunts, Uncles, Plants, Animals, Waters, and the Air for long enough. To them we say a hail and hardy " TAKE YOUR FREAKIN" OIL AND DRINK IT!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Diesel up 375%?!
Posted by: monkeywrench on Aug 31, 2006 3:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Be very suspicious of diesel rising from $0.80 a gal. to $3.00, making it as expensive as gasoline. Diesel is much easier to make than gas, requiring less "cracking" in the refining process – so oil companies charging the same rate as gas for diesel (and jet fuel, a close cousin) is a blatant rip-off!

Yes, oil supplies will decline, and yes, we need to develop alternative fuels and alternative strategies NOW; but we also need to go after the heads of companies that are enriching themselves and their already-wealthy stockholders at everyone else's expense right now as well. Until we can bring biodiesel and french-fry fuel and diesel-made-from-garbage (a promising technology with a demonstration plant now operating) on line commercially, we will remain at the mercy of oil company pirates.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We're clever, but not wise.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Aug 31, 2006 3:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many of our critical problems – environmental damage, chaotic climate change (the REAL danger in global warming), loss of topsoil, greenhouse gas overproduction and the coming resource shortages are all the result of one factor: overpopulation. It should be obvious to anyone with more than a par-golf I.Q. that nothing can expand indefinately in a finite system, and that Earth is FINITE – there's no place else to go. Why we cannot understand this simple point is beyond me.

That scientists like Dr. Paul Erlich and others, groups like The Club of Rome, and not a small number of my fellow college students were concerned about unrestrained population growth over 30 years ago, and that far too little has actually been done about the problem since, does not give me much faith in the human race. It may turn out that we as a species are not wise enough to deserve what we have been given – and we know from the histories of other species what Nature does about THAT, don't we?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 -