Mass starvation: grinding grain for ethanol

Geoff Ward sent Webdiary the following piece, which has also been published on Onlineopinion and ScienceAlert. Geoff holds a Bachelors degree in agricultural science from the University of Sydney, is a retired farmer, grain wholesaler, and describes himself as a concerned citizen. Welcome to Webdiary, Geoff, and thank you.

Will the developed world continue to grind grain for ethanol in the face of mass starvation?
by Geoff Ward

Grain prices have suddenly doubled worldwide and are expected to remain at these levels. For the billions of people who spend a large percentage of their income on food, mostly the urban poor in developing countries, this is and will be a disaster. Starvation and misery, civil unrest, wars spilling across borders and environmental degradation as marginal land is forced into food production will result from this increase in grain prices.

This escalation in grain prices is a result of an imbalance between supply of and the demand for the world’s grain stocks caused by,

increased demand for grain-fed protein as Asian countries increase their standard of living and aspire to the standard of living enjoyed in the developed countries;
increased demand from an increasing world population;
decreased supply as higher oil prices increase the cost of growing grain;
decreased supply of grain due to a series of droughts; and
decreased supply resulting from a rapid increase in the percentage of arable land used to produce biofuels.

Other than biofuel production, we do not have much control over these factors imposing on the grain supply-demand equation.

As in the past we are relying on increasing agricultural productivity to balance this equation. Greater worldwide investment in agriculture science and infrastructure, together with moderate price increases, should ensure success in meeting this uncontrollable demand.

It is the supply impost and rapid increase of the food to fuel industry, namely the use of arable acres for first generation biofuels; the one factor we can control, that agriculture is struggling to come to terms with.

This food to fuel industry is being driven by the mandates and subsidies put in place by governments of the developed world.

About 2000 million tonnes of grain are produced annually in the world. The USA has mandated that 150 million tonnes of corn be turned into ethanol each year. Add similar mandates across the developed world and we can see that at least 10 percent of the world’s grain is mandated for ethanol production.

Further add the acres of sugar beet, sugarcane and cassava used for ethanol, the acres of canola, soybean and palm oil used for biodiesel and we can clearly see that the percentage of arable land taken from grain production by first generation biofuels is a very significant factor in the doubling of grain prices.

With oil currently at about US$100 per barrel there is the real possibility that it will be economically advantageous for the developed world to outbid the poorer countries for the world’s grain and so lead to the greatest disaster yet known to mankind.

The advertised benefits of first generation biofuels, namely the food to fuel industry, can be largely discredited.

The increase in fuel security is insignificant as just a 5-10 percent replacement of fossil fuel would require the conversion of much of a countries grain production;
The CO2 reduction benefits of first generation biofuels have been shown to be negligible to negative (Searchinger, et.al., 2008, Science 319,1238);
Owners of arable acres and investment landlords may gain but some in agriculture will lose. For example, to meet a price point in Asia, higher grain prices for a feedlot will mean that the operator can only pay lower prices for the store steers that are to be fattened;
Food price inflation resulting from high grain prices may be manageable in the developed countries but in the developing countries it will tear them apart both economically and politically;
Higher prices for grain may not in fact lead to the expected worldwide supply response and the modernisation of agriculture in developing countries. This is because to avoid political unrest, riots and worse, many developing countries must hold their domestic grain prices down by taxing, limiting exports and subsidising imports. This means that their farmers do not receive the price signals to increase production nor the increased income to purchase the higher priced fertiliser and other inputs;
Suggestions that grain ethanol production is necessary as a stepping stone to the introduction of cellulose ethanol appear unfounded. The grain ethanol infrastructure will not be located where needed for the production of cellulose ethanol. (see * below) With cellulose ethanol potentially a significant player in combating climate change, public acceptance is a given, with no need of a grain ethanol stepping stone.

In summary, the potential disaster of food shortages for the world’s poorest far outweigh the marginal benefits of converting food to fuel.

Governments of the developed world, that’s you and me, are fully liable for this immoral situation we find ourselves confronting.

Rust disease may take out Pakistan’s wheat crop, China may have a drought and Egypt may not be able to afford to buy grain. Will the developed world continue to grind grain for ethanol in the face of the resultant mass starvation? If the answer is yes, then our civilisation must be judged unethical and selfish, lacking any respect for our fellow human beings. If no, then the food to fuel industry is an uneconomic nonsense as the plants cannot afford to be shutdown. Either way, Governments should not be supporting but indeed should be discouraging this industry.

Alternative fuel sources are still required. ( * )

Second generation ethanol produced from cellulose or other photosynthetic biomass holds some promise. Utilising marginal acres this biomass production need not encroach on arable land to the same extent as food to fuel biofuels and the CO2 reduction from cellulose ethanol is much greater than that from corn ethanol.

This is one of the alternate fuel source industries that governments should be mandating and subsidising. To be fair to the USA, they have taken steps along this road with their recent Energy Bill but too late, the damage has been done.

It is a matter of urgency that you or your organisation familiarise yourself with the details of first generation biofuels and its contribution to the disaster of high grain prices. Information is readily accessed by Google. A Victorian Parliament Committee released in Feb. 2008 the ‘Inquiry into Mandatory Ethanol and Biofuels Targets in Victoria’. This is essential reading to further your knowledge of biofuels from a domestic Australian viewpoint. Note their recommendation that Victoria does not mandate ethanol as proposed.

If you come to a similar conclusion to mine, then please act to at least discourage governments from mandating and subsidising the production of biofuels from grain and vegetable oils. Better still, encourage governments to limit commercial food to fuel production in sympathy with the needs of the worlds poor and to promote second generation biofuels. Taking one further step, suggest governments ensure that scientists in agriculture are encouraged and funded to increase sustainable grain production worldwide.

[ category:

]

The Earth will only support 100 to 300 million people.

Submitted by John Pratt on May 12, 2008 - 1:14pm.

The global imbalance between humans and their supporting environments is much more serious than most people on Earth realise.

I suggest that without petroleum, and after we stop mining arable soils, the Earth will only support the 100-300 million people it did before the advent of cultivation agriculture.

Recent prognostications about the possibility of sustainable development in the context of further population and economic growth are in direct opposition to a growing understanding among ecological economists. The understanding is that all economic and population growth since the advent of agriculture 10,000 years ago has effectively lowered the basic long-term carrying capacity (food productivity potential) of the soil resources on the planet.

William Rees and Mathis Wackernagel who developed the Ecological Footprint analysis appear to believe that humanity overshot global carrying capacity sometime in the 20th century. I have been circulating the thesis that the human family has been in overshoot mode for the last 10,000 years and it is long past time to address this issue.

An extract from Peter Salonius from ABC opinion.

Peter Salonius is a Research Scientist at the Canadian Wood Fibre Centre Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service. This piece was originally published by ScienceAlert.(http://www.sciencealert.com.au/)

The human population is currently above 6.6 billion heading to 9 billion. We seem unable to stop the continuous growth and the destruction of the planet brought on by human demands. Surely the big ethical question of our time is the question of population limits. The two largest religions making up over 3 billion people still encourage us to go forth and multiply.

Pope Benedict XVI has said that the gift of children is a blessing from God, expressing the hope for the rejuvenation of societies that are "lacking in energy and hope because of a declining birth rate".

Catholic News Agency reports that the Holy Father told his weekly Wednesday audience at the Vatican: "To have children is a gift that brings life and welfare to society."

Monsignor Formenti said “"For the first time in history we are no longer at the top: the Muslims have overtaken us," and said that Muslims now make up 19.2 percent of the population of the world as opposed to Catholicism’s 17.4 percent.

Even so, Monsignor Formenti said that if all Christendom is considered: Orthodox, Anglicans and other Christians – that Christians make up 33 percent of the world population or 2 billion people. The entire human population of the world now surpasses 6.6 billion.

China has tried to reduce its population.

The success of China's population planning program is heralded by some because of the fact that as many as 200 million fewer Chinese were born as the program was implemented and gained popularity. Employing exhortation, incentives, and punishments, China's birth rate eventually declined to 1.03 percent in 1995, an extraordinarily low rate for a developing country.

The China the "atheist state" has tried to keep its population under control is could be argued they have done more for the planet than any religious organisation and in fact have behaved more ethically.

Burma's rice crop destroyed. The price of rice will soar.

Submitted by John Pratt on May 8, 2008 - 9:45am.

Burma was an exception. It was expected to export half a million tons of rice, including to Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, which will not produce enough themselves this year – Bangladesh's shortfall is due to damage from another cyclone last November. Now much of Burma's rice crop has been devastated.

India has waived its export ban for the WFP, and will sell its rice for export. But normally the Irrawaddy Delta is where the agency gets food for development programmes in Burma's impoverished north. Now the delta region itself will also need aid.

Before Burma was struck by this weeks devastating cyclone it was exporting rice. Now millions of the Burmese population are at risk of starvation. The price of rice is expected to climb even higher. The developed world needs to open its pockets to prevent millions from dying. Bangladesh and Burma have lost their rice crops due to cyclones. Australia has not been able to produce a rice crop because of drought.

But six long years of drought have taken a toll, reducing Australia's rice crop by 98 percent and leading to the mothballing of the mill last December.

Are we now beginning to see the effects of global warming and a foretaste of what the next few years are going to be like?

Burma and rice production

Submitted by Jenny Hume on May 8, 2008 - 4:17pm.

John: I recall from my geography class in the fifties that Burma was the world's largest exporter of rice. Unfortunately from then on it was all downhill and Burma is one of the least developed nations in Asia, thanks to the inward looking generals. There is enormous untapped agricultural capacity in that country. It could be a very wealthy nation, but that is not going to happen under the current leadership.

The misery now visited on those unfortunate people is terrible. The least we can all do is send some money to the aid agencies. So come on folks, dig deep.

Food shortages have reached emergency proportions.

Submitted by John Pratt on April 15, 2008 - 9:22am.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Mr Bush discussed the issue at length with Cabinet members on Monday and "is very concerned and believes that (developed) nations have a responsibility to help those that are in need."Concerns about food costs took on new urgency as senators in Haiti ousted the prime minister after a week of food-related rioting in which at least five people died. There have also been protests in Cameroon, Niger and Burkina Faso in Africa, and in Indonesia and the Philippines.

At the United Nations, secretary general Ban Ki-Moon said rapidly worsening food shortages around the world had "reached emergency proportions".

"We need not only short-term emergency measures to meet urgent critical needs and avert starvation in many regions across the world, but also a significant increase in long-term productivity in food grain production," he said.

"The international community will also need to take urgent and concerted action in order to avert the larger political and security implications of this growing crisis," he told a meeting of the UN Economic and Social Council with international financial and trade bodies.

China will shift from corn to sorghum, cassava and sweet potato plants to make biofuel in the next five years.

We are witnessing the beginning of one of the great tragedies of history, says Lester Brown. The United States, in a misguided effort to reduce its oil insecurity by converting grain into fuel for cars, is generating global food insecurity on a scale never seen before, he warns.

Ethanol use at current levels has also led to skyrocketing corn prices as the available supply is split between food and fuel uses. This has led to higher prices for corn products and things such as corn-fed meat. The U.S. Department of Agriculture predicts that the ethanol mandate will continue to apply upward pressure on food prices in the coming years.Even the price of tortillas, the dietary staple of many low-income Mexicans, has been affected.

In NSW the government is about to boost ethanol production.

THE State Government is determined to massively boost ethanol production, despite debate internationally about the impact of the biofuels industry on food supply.

Legislation could be passed this year that would force oil companies to make all standard unleaded petrol E10, or 10 per cent ethanol, from 2010.

Speaking from the Ethanol 2008 conference in Sydney, ACFA Chairman Ross Walker says the sugar industry could benefit greatly from policy shifts favouring fuels like ethanol.

Previous calls to the Howard led Coalition fell on deaf ears, but with climate change becoming the buzz word of the Rudd Government, Mr Walker thinks a mandate could give the struggling ethanol industry the leg up it needs.

"The sugarcane plant is without doubt the king of plants when it comes to producing renewable energy."

"Australia's self sufficiency in oil production is declining each year, and it's important now that ethanol should be a national issue and should be a top priority for the country as a whole."

Ethanol whether it is made from corn or sugar cane is an issue that we must come to grips with as a nation. It we use corn or wheat the price of grain will skyrocket. Maybe sugar cane is the answer, we certainly need a lot more research and before we make it mandatory we should take into account the effects any such legislation will have on world food prices.

Grain ethanol yes or no?

Submitted by geoff ward on April 14, 2008 - 11:25pm.

Hello John Pratt,

There may be too many people for this planet but how many should we have? The number will depend on the standard of living we aspire to.This is more important than an absolute number.

You have not addressed the topic of my article, the urgent need to halt the grain to ethanol industry. Do you see it as a way of decreasing the population? What benefits do you think it has, what costs. Do you think it immoral to suddenly price the food out of the reach of those urban poor who have become urbanised through the availability of cheap food over the last 40 years.?

I would like to hear your practical views on this issue, some solutions to today's problems.

Richard: Welcome to Webdiary Geoff, and thanks for the piece. Would you mind re-registering using your first and surnames? Thanks!

We must change our economic system. We must learn to share.

Submitted by John Pratt on April 15, 2008 - 8:24am.

Geoff, putting a figure on what the world's population should be, is difficult. You are correct the number will depend on the standard of living we are willing to accept. I believe that the population living in the developed world who are using up many times their share of the planet's resources, have the ability to make choices that will decide whether or not the people in the under developed world live in poverty, with starvation always at their doorstep. Because of this we should not take actions that will put pressure on food prices, such as diverting food for the production of ethanol.

We must recognise that our current economic system is failing because we do not accept that we live on a finite planet with limited resources. We should not encourage people to have more children. Australia's baby bonus is ridiculous. It makes no sense to be paying people to increase the population. We should in fact we encouraging people to have fewer children.

We should question religions that discourage the use of contraception especially in the third world. We should be reducing the amount of money we spend on war and increase the amount we spend on education and health.

We should increase our level of aid to the third world so that every child has access to an education and an adequate health system.

To solve the world's energy problems we should move to alternative energy such as solar, wave, hydro, and geo thermal. At the same time we should regulate efficiencies in our transport systems including cars, in our buildings and all other uses of energy that now currently waste energy.

We can have a brilliant future. We can eliminate poverty. To get there we have to learn to share and move into that future bringing everyone with us. We cannot leave half the planet behind, we must look at every decision we make and take into account its cost on the planet. Every time we take an action in the developed world we should make sure it does not have an adverse reaction in the developing world. We should realise that borders are only in the mind a child starving in India is just as important as a child starving in Sydney.

Green revolution and an every increasing population.

Submitted by John Pratt on April 14, 2008 - 12:24pm.

Real per capita incomes almost doubled in Asia between 1970 and 1995, and poverty declined from nearly three out of every five Asians in 1975 to less than one in three by 1995.The absolute number of poor people fell from 1.15 billion in 1975 to 825 million in 1995 despite a 60 percent increase in population. In India, the percentage of the rural population living below the poverty line fluctuated between 50 and 65 percent before the mid-1960s but then declined steadily to about one-third of the rural population by 1993. Research studies show that much of this steady decline in poverty is attributable to agricultural growth and associated declines in food prices. The Green Revolution also contributed to better nutrition by raising incomes and reducing prices, which permitted people to consume more calories and a more diversified diet. Big increases occurred in per capita consumption of vegetable oils, fruits, vegetables, and livestock products in Asia.

The rapid rise in food prices could push 100m people in poor countries deeper into poverty, the head of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, has said.

His warning follows that from the leader of the International Monetary Fund, who said hundreds of thousands of people are at risk of starvation.

Mr Zoellick proposed an action plan to boost long-run agricultural production.

There have been food riots recently in a number of countries, including Haiti, the Philippines and Egypt.

"Based on a rough analysis, we estimate that a doubling of food prices over the last three years could potentially push 100 million people in low-income countries deeper into poverty," Mr Zoellick said.

The Green Revolution helped to make agriculture more productive; it did nothing to slow the rising population. We are now seeing a world food crisis develop that will make the promise to end poverty a sick joke.

"Extreme poverty can be ended, not in the time of our grandchildren, but our time." Thus forecasts Jeffrey D. Sachs, whose twenty-five years of experience observing the world from many vantage points has helped him shed light on the most vital issues facing our planet: the causes of poverty, the role of rich-country policies, and the very real possibilities for a poverty-free future. Deemed "the most important economist in the world" by The New York Times Magazine and "the world's best-known economist" by Time magazine, Sachs brings his considerable expertise to bear in the landmark The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time, his highly anticipated blueprint for world-wide economic success — a goal, he argues, we can reach in a mere twenty years.

Without tackling the population problem we will never see an end to poverty.

Economists have to admit we live in a finite world that has limits to population.

"End world poverty in a mere twenty years" Economists should learn more about mathematics, these so called experts must believe in fairies.

Resources and Energy

Submitted by Evan Hadkins on April 12, 2008 - 9:23pm.

It seems to me that we can easily generate needed energy (and a little intelligent design could reduce hugely the energy we need). In this sense the starvation is down to the vested interests of the existing energy industry. Cellulosic ethanol may be part of the answer - I'm not a chemist so I can't say for sure.

But resources can be irreplaceable. This is hugely important. Sustainability is about sustainable use of resources.

Moving to a more sustainable economy.

Submitted by John Pratt on April 12, 2008 - 3:00pm.

Growing evidence suggests that the global economy, rooted in ideas and assumptions that were progressive two hundred years ago, is now destroying its own ecological base and offering little to billions of impoverished people. In response, pioneers are creating the architecture of sustainable economies, one innovation at a time. State of the World 2008 describes these innovations—from microfinance to closed-loop manufacturing and the use of trusts to protect common resources—as well as identifying the obstacles that prevent a critical mass of people and organizations from moving toward sustainability, and rallying coalitions of stakeholders that can produce win-win solutions and strategies for achieving specific sustainability goals.

State of the world 2008 shows how we are destroying our ecological base. Millions are on the edge of starvation. Perhaps the current collapse of the global financial markets will push us into looking for more sustainable alternatives. The old ideas are failing us and we need to move into a sustainable future.

The Club of Rome and "Limits to Growth"

Submitted by John Pratt on April 10, 2008 - 6:07pm.

"Limits to Growth" did not just call for a reduced level of consumption of resources. The Club has argued that humankind needs to re-evaluate its exploitative attitude towards humans and the earth itself. The failure to give more foreign aid is indicative of the increased selfishness of rich countries. Meanwhile, the world's richest 20 per cent of the population consume 86 per cent of its goods and services, over half its energy and nearly half its meat and fish. There is little indication that most of the world's richest people are willing to heed the warning from "Limits to Growth", they are too busy making the most of today.
Therefore, the reluctance to give foreign aid and help the Third World is in itself a reflection of the prevailing economic mindset: making a virtue out of selfishness. There is no doubt that the market system is the best way to create wealth (by encouraging everyone to look out for their own best interests). But the market system was not designed to share wealth or protect the environment - as even The Economist magazine is having to admit. So, as it stands, the market system enriches the wealthy, impoverishes the poor, and endangers the planet....

The 1972 warnings by the Club of Rome - a nongovernmental think tank now based in Hamburg that brings together academics, business executives, civil servants and politicians to grapple with a wide range of global issues - struck a chord because they came as oil prices were rising sharply. Oil production in the continental U.S. had peaked, sparking fears that energy demand had outstripped supply. Over time, America became more energy efficient, overseas oil production rose and prices fell.

The dynamic today appears different. So far, the oil industry has failed to find major new sources of crude. Absent major finds, prices are likely to keep rising, unless consumers cut back. Taxes are one way to curb their appetites. In Western Europe and Japan, for example, where gas taxes are higher than in the U.S., per capita consumption is much lower.

New technology could help ease the resource crunch. Advances in agriculture, desalination and the clean production of electricity, among other things, would help.

But Mr. Stiglitz, the economist, contends that consumers eventually will have to change their behavior even more than then did after the 1970s oil shock. He says the world's traditional definitions and measures of economic progress - based on producing and consuming ever more - may have to be rethought.

In years past, the U.S., Europe and Japan have proven adept at adjusting to resource constraints. But history is littered with examples of societies believed to have suffered Malthusian crises: the Mayans of Central America, the Anasazi of the U.S. Southwest, and the people of Easter Island.

The Club of Rome produced the report Limits to Growth in 1972. I remember discussing (arguing about) this 36 years ago. It looks like the report may have been a little before its time but unless we change our ways we will surely suffer a Malthusian crisis.

I think I may fairly make two postulata. First, That food is necessary to the existence of man. Secondly, That the passion between the sexes is necessary and will remain nearly in its present state. These two laws, ever since we have had any knowledge of mankind, appear to have been fixed laws of our nature, and, as we have not hitherto seen any alteration in them, we have no right to conclude that they will ever cease to be what they now are, without an immediate act of power in that Being who first arranged the system of the universe, and for the advantage of his creatures, still executes, according to fixed laws, all its various operations.
...
Assuming then my postulata as granted, I say, that the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man. Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio.
– Malthus 1798, Chapter 1

Smart bloke that Malthus

Submitted by Scott Dunmore on April 11, 2008 - 12:22am.

He agrees with me.

John, I've come to the conclusion you're a bachelor and have independent means. No other situation can account for your prodigious output and research. Hopefully you will be used to my bantering style by now and know there is no malice intended. In this case I mean it with all respect. I've called you a "starry eyed optimist" but I suspect a change in this regard. The reason I said this was because while you were searching for answers, I saw none allowable.

A good while ago it dawned on me, (it really was like a revelation,) that we are living in the era of "Gotterdammerung". I fell into a darkness of spirit wherein I posted nothing for a year; what was the point? Death, destruction, political corruption, all the horrors that we have recently witnessed, what did it matter in the face of the (potential?) cataclysm to come? Thankfully I've come out of it but nothing has changed with regard to my expectations, notwithstanding my last post "Ring any bells?"

As I see it civilisation faces two major problems and my posts over the years reflect them. In order of importance they are: Population growth and declining cheap and readily available energy resources. This is the reason for my contemptuous dismissal of Green House Gas theory; not only because it is unscientific but because global warming is not the major problem. (In this regard it would appear there is conflicting evidence and my fellow albatross has picked up on it but you can't ignore great chunks of ice falling into the sea or running downstream.) All this ground has been covered in depth before but this does bear reiterating; there appears to be a wilful blindness to the facts. Your link provided me with this.

"Scientists have occasionally acknowledged that population growth is the major cause of our problems. But I wonder whether their general reticence stems from the fact that it is politically incorrect or unpopular to argue for stabilization of population—at least in the US. Or perhaps scientists are simply uncomfortable stepping outside their specialized areas of expertise."

May you go with your god.

Not a bachelor, a "starry eyed optimist" maybe.

Submitted by John Pratt on April 11, 2008 - 11:30am.

Scott Dunmore, I am not a bachelor – I have a long suffering wife (41 years now). She thinks I am crazy, sometimes I think she is right. I am retired, which gives me the freedom to comment on Webdiary. It’s like doing a crossword – it keeps my brain active. I get up early, read the newspapers online and comment to help relieve my frustrations. I believe in the power of the idea so I want to contribute to the pool of ideas that are floating around the planet. Not sure it makes the slightest difference, but I do feel better after contributing – it has become addictive. I still have a life – I do volunteer work with the RSL and take my wife out for lunch most days. She loves shopping. I even find time to work in my garden and help with household chores.

I tend to be an optimist, "starry eyed" if you like. I believe we can find a way out of the problems we face, but first we must agree that we have a few problems.

I am not a great believer in any God, not sure if the human race is the only intelligent life form in the universe; I hope not. I agree with you and Malthus that over population is probably the biggest problem we face. Maybe if we live in an empty universe our future may be to populate the universe, but not in my lifetime. We have a few lessons to learn before we begin to leave this planet.

Greed, I believe is one of the curses we have to overcome to live on this finite planet. Most religions teach us to love one another. Maybe one day we will.

Kozinski on 'Limits to Growth'

Submitted by Dylan Kissane on April 10, 2008 - 7:11pm.

John, I've never read that book but this review of The Skeptical Environmentalist does mention a few of the predictions that the Club of Rome made and notes:

The Limits of Growthmade some very concrete and highly alarming predictions: “there will . . . be a desperate [arable] land shortage before the year 2000”; we would run short of gold by 1979, of silver and mercury by 1983, of petroleum by 1990, of zinc by 1988, of tin by 1985 and of natural gas by 1992...
With the benefit of hindsight, we know that The Limits to Growth was a bunch of hooey; virtually nothing the Club of Rome predicted with such alarm has come to pass. Of course, its members did not then come out with a big press release: “Oh what fools we were! We apologize for worrying the world unnecessarily.” Instead, doomsday predictions proven wrong by the passage of time are quietly forgotten, denying the public the important lesson that one ought to be wary of predictive models because they often reflect, not reality, but the preconceptions of the model’s creators.

The first two pages of the review (including the footnotes) are probably the most relevant though the entire thing - and the book actually under review - are both interesting, too.

The warning may have been early but still valid.

Submitted by John Pratt on April 10, 2008 - 8:59pm.

Dylan, have you noticed the price of gold?

According to the World Gold Council, annual mine production of gold over the last few years has been close to 2,500 tonnes. About 3,000 tonnes goes into jewelry or industrial/dental production, and around 500 tonnes goes to retail investors and exchange traded gold funds. This translates to an annual demand for gold to be 1000 tonnes in excess over mine production which has come from central bank sales and other disposal.

Looks like a shortage of gold to me.

How about silver?

Mine production could not satisfy physical demands of either gold or silver. However, I like silver better because most official sectors, such as the US government, have run out of silver. Only governments do nutty things like selling a valuable asset to suppress its price. I trust the private enterprises holding silver stockpiles to be logical (i.e. profit-seeking) participants in the silver market. If Mr. David Morgan were right that China provided most of the silver to fulfill the demand for the last few years, then the silver picture would just get more bullish. I expect China in a year or two will be a net silver importer (if it has not already), just like soybeans, copper, steel, and any other commodity you can think of.

We all know about peak oil and the soaring oil price.

Short Of

Submitted by Dylan Kissane on April 10, 2008 - 9:22pm.

John, I guess it comes down to what they meant by "short of". Like I said, I haven't read the book and I couldn't find an e-copy online. If you or anyone has got a copy lying about I'd be interested in the original context.

UN warns of food shortage riots.

Submitted by John Pratt on April 10, 2008 - 4:04pm.

"Now I don't want to exaggerate this or be alarmist about it. When food prices go up for people who are right on the edge of food insecurity of marginal survival to start with, then as soon as they rise beyond a certain point, they have no money to cover their needs or no money for anything else, and that's why the social unrest arises."

Mr Holmes believes the situation is getting worse because global price rises have been so steep and rapid.

"Most of the staples of people's diet - wheat and rice - have risen more than 50 per cent in the last 12 months and they've risen even more steeply than that very recently," he said.

"There are some fundamental factors behind this. This is not just, I think, a sort of quick blip in prices which will return to normal shortly, it's because there are these fundamental factors of the population rising, crops being used for bio-fuels, more sophisticated diets in places like India and China.

Geoff, an excellent and timely piece. Food riots are already occurring and more and more people are becoming desperate. You are right to call this a moral obligation on the part of the developed world. Unless we change our ways millions will starve.

Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Navigation

The Issues