Myth 1: "World population is exploding!"
As the main image shows, there is indeed a growing world population to feed, but this growth is not dramatic - in fact, many areas show stable or even decreasing populations.
Myth 2: "Population growth is responsible for rising prices of food!"
As the Financial Times reports, prices of almost all significant food and feedstuffs have risen sharply recently. Again, as the main image shows, population growth is gradual and there has been no dramatic growth recently. Myth 3: "Population size is responsible for global warming!"
How strong is the link between population and global warming? Having a larger population doesn't imply emitting more greenhouse gases. India has well over 1 billion people, yet it emits less CO2 than Russia's 143 million people, according to CDIAC data 2004, as shown on the image on the left.
Myth 4: "Population growth in developing nations is responsible for global warming!"
Countries with the largest population growth emit less CO2 than the most developed countries where population is stable or decreasing, such as in Europe and Japan. According to UN projections, almost all population growth between now and 2050 will take place in developing nations, mostly in Africa. Yet, data show that Africa emits the least amount of greenhouse gases, both per person and per square km.
 |  |
Myth 5: "We need birth control to reduce global warming!"
China, with its one-child policy, emits more greenhouse gases than both India and Russia together. Having strict birth control doesn't appear to reduce emittions of greenhouse gases. China emits more CO2 per person or per square km than India.
Myth 6: "Problem is, developing nations seek lifestyles like developed nations!"
Firstly, the so-called "developed" nations have in many respects clearly developed in the wrong direction, so it would indeed be a problem if that became the norm. Projections are that Africa will grow most in terms of people, while it also emits the least amount of greenhouse gases, both per person and per square km. Africa has a huge potential for solar energy and hydro-energy, plenty of water and land, without the population densities seen in Asia and Europe. Let's hope that Africa doesn't repeat the mistakes made elsewhere and develops in better ways - what would help is if we try and set a good example!
Such myths are cheap excuses not to act
At closer look, many commonly assumed relationships between food prices, greenhouse gas emissions and population growth or size don't add up. It's just another diversion, a scapegoat cooked up by those who seek to stop governments around the world from taking the action that's really needed, i.e. facilitating a shift to clean and safe technologies.
Let's stop blaming scapegoats and instead take action!
Indeed, the US can largely eliminate its greenhouse gas emissions by shifting away from burning fossil fuel towards using electricity alone. This can be achieved by implementing a framework of feebates tailored to each achieve a specific shift, e.g. favoring installion of wind turbines and solar facilities that are not only price-competitive, but that will also reduce oil imports and create many local jobs.
Why have food prices risen so dramatically?
Similarly, government should respond to high food prices by facilitating specific changes. Food prices have risen with the decrease of land available for food production, due to urban sprawl, land degradation and other causes described below. Similarly, prices of fish have risen due to overfishing and water-pollution.
Increasingly, the most fertile farming land around cities is used for housing, lawns, roads, industry, retail and other purposes than producing food. Urbanization itself has pushed up food prices. For decades, the lure of the city has been removing cheap labor from rural areas, with farms resorting to tractors that use oil and shifting to monocultures that require more irrigation and fertilizers. This has made farming more expensive and polluting around the world. Recently, the sharp increases in prices of fertilizers and oil have driven up the costs of farming and of food transport, putting further upward pressure on food prices.
Income growth in China, India and other emerging economies has resulted not only in a growing demand for cars and oil, but also in a growing appetite for meat. According to a recent article in the Economist, the Chinese consumer who ate 20kg (44lb) of meat in 1985 will scoff over 50kg of the stuff this year. Livestock requires more land than crop, while additionally using crop for feed. That in turn pushes up demand for grain: it takes 8kg of grain to produce one of beef.
Above article in the Economist also notes that the 30m tonnes of extra maize going to ethanol this year amounts to half the fall in the world's overall grain stocks. Growing worldwide demand for biofuel further reduces the amount of land used to produce food crops. Biofuel competes with food, not just in terms of available land, water, fertilizer and other basic resources, but also in terms of farming labor, expertise, R&D funding, agricultural transport infrastructure, marketing, etc.
In conclusion, the real cause of the recent rises in food prices is government failure to adequately respond to above-mentioned developments, such as rising costs of farming, reductions of land available for food production, etc.
Yes, global warming makes things worse
At the same time, climate change is pushing up food prices. Tropical crop diseases and pests, such as locusts and rats, increasingly plague regions that were previously unaffected. Of the 37 countries listed by FAO as "food crisis" countries requiring assistance, 21 have suffered from tornadoes, cyclones, dust-storms, floods, droughts and other extreme wheather conditions, causing land degradation, crop failure and large scale displacement of people. And 20 of them suffer from civil war and refugee crises, according to this article in IPS News.
As the land turns into savannas and deserts, traditional farmers move in large numbers to the cities, to be replaced by nomads who bring in goats and sheep that tear out green vegetation root and all. The remaining wood is then often used as firewood for cooking.
The point is, government should take adequate action
Once more, it's government failure to take adequate action that's pushing up food prices. Governments should stop supportingpolluting farming practices that come at the expense of food, water and rainforests. High food prices should make farmers grow food crops rather than biofuel and they shouldn't burn forests for that. Farmers are best assisted with increased soil fertility through AgriChar, which can end any perceived need for slash-and-burn practices. Also, a staggering amount of food is currently wasted. Government should take the initiative here by focusing on waste management. Turning biowaste into AgriChar can further produce clean energy locally in the form of hydrogen.
Potatoes
Government should further encourage that farmers grow more potatoes and other vegetables; growing potatoes gives higher yield than most other crops; reducing meat consumption will also make more land available for other food.
Potatoes grow pretty much anywhere and - most importantly - they require little water, they mature in as little as 50 days, and they can yield between two and four times more food per hectare than wheat or rice.
Government should discourage the practices of burning firewood and charcoal, as this only leads to further deforestation, lung infections and global warming. Instead, government should encourage the use of solar cookers, e.g. to boil potatoes. Boiling potatoes in their skins prevents loss of nutrients, the more so when they are boiled at relatively low temperatures of about 70°C (158°F). When the water has cooled down, it can also be used for washing hands and cleaning.
Unlike many other types of food, potatoes can also be easily cooked in a microwave oven and still retain most of their nutritional value, especially when they are properly covered.
Such info about potatoes should be passed on widely, including the warning that the potato plant protects itself against fungi and insects by glycoalkaloids, which can be toxic and are not destroyed by cooking - this can be resolved by cutting away green areas and peeling the potatoes before eating.
FeeBates
All this can be achieved by implementing a framework of feebates, each tailored to facilitate a specific change. We can all largely eliminate our greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and at the same time grow enough food to feed a growing world population.
References:
countries by population density - Wikipedia
Demographic Yearbook - Population statistics, UN Statistics Division
CDIAC data 2004 - Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), US Department of Energy
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 14
That's why I advocate FeeBates. A feebate policy is budget-neutral and is the most effective way to achieve the shifts we need. In essence, a FeeBate policy will impose a fee something we want to move away from, while the proceeds of these fees are used to support better alternatives, in the form of rebates. This makes a feebate policy doubly effective. This also minimizes the risk that proceeds will feed a wasteful bureaucracy that is prone to be influenced by vested interests. As the desired shift eventuates, the feebate policy will phase itself out, without leaving behind a huge apparatus of bureaucrats that have become dependent on income from such policies.
I can think of another reason for rising food prices: There are MANY of us who - with good reason, and proof of their harmfulness - categorically refuse GMO food - and so prices of grain are being pushed and folks are being told untold millions will starve if we don't see the error of our ways and allow Monsanto & others to make obscene amounts of money selling their poison to us...
You mention that Africa should not make the same mistakes that "developed" countries have. Africa is developed, it is just not overly developed like other countries.
Cristina had some interesting points. I'm interested in hearing your response Sam.
Thank you for sharing this information with us Sam.
Blessings ~
Rene
The risk of something going wrong is unacceptable, especially given the urgency to act on global warming. We simply do not have the many years of testing and checking that are necessary to be more confident that everything will be OK. We need to put a huge effort into preserving the huge numbers of species that are under threat of extinction and using further land for GM-crop or animals would mean less land being available for those species that are under threat.
There's no need to mess with animals to feed the people of the world. In the article, I mention potatoes as something to be encouraged. This will provide more yield than most other crops. Thousands of varieties persist in the Andes, where over 100 varieties might be found in a single valley, and a dozen or more might be maintained by a single agricultural household, says Wikipedia. Rather than having fields of one specific type, I would prefer people to have more gardens each with a great variety of local vegetation.
As the article points out, the relationship between population growth and global warming is shaky. In climate change negotiations, politicians select graphs that suit their goals. Countries with low population density (such as Australia, Canada and Greenland) will look better on graphs that show CO2 per square km, and worse on graphs that show CO2 emissions per person. Countries that produce fossil fuel often have a low population density, while most fossil fuel is exported.
By contrast, poor countries, especially those with high population densities, look better on graphs that show CO2 per person. While graphs that show CO2 per person may suggest a relationship between global warming and wealth, I am convinced that it's bad politics that cause emissions, not wealth.
Another perspective is that Europe and the U.S. have been emitting greenhouse gases for many years, suggesting that newly developed nations were entitled to emit more. China looks better on graphs that show accumulated emissions over the years (as pictured below), as opposed to graphs that show recent emissions by country (as pictured on above graph).