PowerSwitch

PEAK OIL AND FAMINE: 4 BILLION DEATHS

Peter Goodchild

At some point in the early years of the 21st century, there will be a clash of two giant forces: overpopulation and oil depletion. That much has been known for a long time. It is also well known that population must eventually decline in order to match the decline in oil production. A further problem, however, is that it will be impossible to get those two giant forces into equilibrium in any gentle fashion, because of a matter that is rarely considered: that in every year that has gone by ? and every year that will arrive ? the population of the earth is automatically adjusted so that it is almost exactly equal to its carrying capacity. We are always barely surviving. Population growth is soaring, whereas oil production is plunging. If, at the start of any year, the world?s population is greater than its carrying capacity, only simple arithmetic is needed to see that the difference between the two numbers means that mortality will be above the normal by the end of that year. In fact, over the course of the 21st century there will be about 4 billion deaths (probably about 3.6, to be more precise) above normal.

Let us refer to those 4 billion above-normal deaths as ?famine deaths,? for lack of a better term, since ?peak oil? in terms of daily life is really ?peak food.? There will, of course, also be famines for other reasons. It is also true that warfare and plague will take their toll to a large extent before famine claims those same humans as its victims.

The increase in the world?s population has been rather simple: from about 1.6 billion in 1900 to about 6.1 billion in 2000 [9]. A quick glance at a chart of world population growth shows a line that runs almost horizontally for thousands of years, and then makes an almost vertical ascent as it approaches the year 2000. As Gordon and Suzuki said in 1990, ?more people have been added to the Earth during the past 40 or 50 years than have been added since the dawn of man? [8]. That is not just an amusing curiosity. It is a shocking fact that should have awakened humanity to the realization that something is dreadfully wrong.

Mankind is always prey to its own ?exuberance,? to use William R. Catton?s term [3]. That has certainly been true of population growth. ?Do you have any children?? or, ?How many children do you have?? is a form of greeting or civility almost equivalent to ?How do you do?? or, ?Nice to meet you.? But that vertical ascent of world population growth has always been hazardous. The destruction of the environment reaches back into the invisible past, and the ruination of land, sea, and sky has been well described if not well heeded. But what is not so frequently noted is that with every increase in human numbers we are only barely able to keep up with the demand: providing all those people with food, water, and living space has not been easy. We are, in other words, pushing ourselves to the limits of Earth?s carrying capacity. The same has been true for most of human history.

Even that is an understatement. In the late 20th century we actually went beyond the carrying capacity. No matter how much environmental degradation we created, there was always the sense that we could somehow get by. But in the late 20th century we stopped getting by. It is important to differentiate between production in an ?absolute? sense and production ?per person.? Although oil production, in ?absolute? numbers, kept climbing ? only to decline around 2000 or 2010 ? what was ignored was that although that ?absolute? production was climbing, the production ?per person? was not. In the year 1990 there were 4.5 barrels of oil per person per year. By the year 2000 there were only about 4.3. The same sort of problem was occurring with world grain supplies: although government sources cheerfully tell us that grain production in absolute terms is still increasing every year, what they are not telling us is that because of overpopulation the amount of grain per person is actually declining [5]. There is more grain, but there are more mouths to feed. The same problem of resources ?per person? can be seen in the world?s fish catches. We are no longer getting by. We have been scraping the edges of the earth?s carrying capacity, and we are now entering a dangerous era.

But the main point to keep in mind is that throughout the 20th century, oil production and human population were so closely integrated that every barrel of oil had an effect on human numbers.

While population has been going up, so has oil production: from about 0.1 billion barrels in 1900 to about 4.2 in 1950, to about 27.0 in 2000 [1,2]. According to most estimates, the peak was (or will be) around 2000 or 2010. The rest is a steep drop: 20 billion barrels in 2020, 15 in 2030, 9 in 2040, 5 in 2050.

Exact figures on future oil production obviously do not exist. Nevertheless, the 1998 figures of Campbell and Laher?rre are commonly considered reliable. In any case, the 2007 BP Global figure of 1.2 trillion barrels of proved reserves, when divided by annual production, gives us virtually the same results as those of Campbell and Laher?rre. The main discrepancy is in the years 2000 to 2006, for which the BP report is both more up-to-date and more generous, and the BP figures for those years are therefore incorporated in the present predictions. The year 2006 has somewhat arbitrarily been chosen as the date of peak oil. The much-later projections, from 2051 onward, are merely an extrapolation (growth trend) of the projections for previous years.

Another point to keep in mind is that the relation between population and oil production is one of cause and effect. The skyrocketing of population is not merely coincident with the skyrocketing of oil production. It is the latter that actually causes the former. With abundant oil, a large population is possible ? ignoring, of course, the fact that environmental degradation may eventually wipe out those human numbers anyway. Without abundant oil, on the other hand, a large population is not possible. (There is no point in belaboring theories of ?alternative energy.? [5,6]) It was industrialization, improved agriculture, improved medicine, the expansion of humanity into the Americas, and so on, that began the upward climb, but it is oil that has allowed human numbers to triple over the last 70 years.

Incidentally, carrying capacity does not increase in direct proportion to the number of barrels of oil per person, because as the population goes up there is more strain on the environment. As a result, we were comfortable enough with 1 barrel per person in 1940, but less comfortable with 4 barrels per person in 1990.

Because oil production is the determining factor in population growth, we now have a useful set of numbers: the ?existing population? for any given year in the past is roughly the same thing as the ?carrying capacity? for that year. We can thereby deduce another useful set of numbers: the ?existing population? at the start of any given year in the future must decrease to become the ?carrying capacity? for that year. ?Oil production determines carrying capacity?: that is an immutable law.

Human population will collapse in any year in which there is a difference between the initial population and the carrying capacity. The equation is not complex: (A) the previous year?s population (in billions) can be subtracted from (B) the carrying capacity (in billions) to give us (C) the number of deaths (in billions) by famine. The data for carrying capacity can be inserted by looking at similar data for oil production and population in the years 1900 to 2000. Some samples of future years are:

2031 (oil 13.8G bbl): (A) 3.5 minus (B) 3.4 equals (C) 0.1
2032 (oil 13.2G bbl): (A) 3.4 minus (B) 3.4 equals (C) 0.1
2033 (oil 12.6G bbl): (A) 3.4 minus (B) 3.3 equals (C) 0.1

(The ?normal,? non-famine-related, birth and death rates are not included in these figures, since for most of pre-industrial human history the sum of the two ? i.e. the ?growth rate? ? has been nearly zero. And the future will be generally ?pre-industrial.?)

Applying the above equation to all the years from 2000 to 2100, we arrive at a total number of famine deaths of about 4 billion, with the greatest annual mortality in the earlier years. Following these equations further down the years, we find that by 2100 there are still 2 billion humans, with 10 million famine deaths in that year. The famine deaths do not become zero until nearly the end of the 22nd century, when the population reaches about 1 billion, with almost no oil left, duplicating the conditions of the year 1900 or earlier. That 22nd century may add another 1 or 2 billion famine deaths to the 4 billion of the 21st century. These later figures, of course, are far less reliable. War, disease, global warming, topsoil deterioration, and other factors will have unforeseeable effects of their own.

These equations obliterate all previous estimates of future population growth. Instead of a steady rise over the course of the century, there will be a sudden slump, with the clash of the two giant forces of overpopulation and oil depletion, followed by a less precipitous ride into the unknown future.


SOURCES, REFERENCES, AND FURTHER READING

1. BP Global Statistical Review of World Energy. June 2007. http://www.bp.com/statisticalreview

2. Campbell, Colin J. and Jean H. Laherr?re. The End of Cheap Oil. Scientific American, March 1998. http://www.dieoff.org/page140.htm

3. Catton, William R. Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change. Urbana, Illinois: U of Illinois P, 1982.

4. Duncan, Richard C. The Peak of World Oil Production and the Road to the Olduvai Gorge. http://dieoff.org/page224.htm

5. Earth Policy Institute. Earth Policy Indicators. http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/

6. Goodchild, Peter. Peak Oil and the Myth of Alternative Energy. Countercurrents. Sept. 6, 2006. http://countercurrents.org/po-goodchild061006.htm

7. . -----. Peak Oil and the Problem of Infrastructure. Countercurrents. Sept. 29, 2006. http://countercurrents.org/po-goodchild290906.htm

8. Gordon, Anita, and David Suzuki. It?s a Matter of Survival. Toronto: Stoddart, 1990.

9. United Nations Population Fund. World Population to 2300. New York: United Nations. http://www.unfpa.org/swp/


Peter Goodchild is the author of Survival Skills of the North American Indians, published by Chicago Review Press. He can be reached at petergoodchild@interhop.net.

Great article.

Check out the typo for the sample year 2032 however.

Otherwise points well made.

It is a shocking fact that should have awakened humanity to the realization that something is dreadfully wrong.

Well, we seem to have got the hang of having babies without either mother or child dieing. I'm not sure that that is, in itself, dreadfully wrong, though there are demographic implications. I also urge caution about exagerating the influence of oil. It may dominate the 'Western' lifesyle but there are a very great many people on the Earth who use very litttle oil. I happen to be one of those who believe that 9 billion people can be well fed and live happily on this one planet. What stops it happening is the greed of the few, the unwillingness to be nice to each other and a good deal of stupidity. These are difficult problems but are potentially solvable.

biffvernon wrote:What stops it happening is the greed of the few, the unwillingness to be nice to each other and a good deal of stupidity. These are difficult problems but are potentially solvable.

I think CERA's oil forecasts are more probable that us solving "the greed of the few, the unwillingness to be nice to each other" in the next few decades. If that's what it will take - game over. We need solutions what work despite us being "human".

In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive.

The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown.

Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway.

If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved.

Some people opposed the captain's decision.

They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die.

The captain rejected this reasoning.

Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed.

In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action.

If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?

please also read http://www.literaturepage.com/read/callofthewild.html chapter 5 is worth reading the whole books good but I think you need to read chapter 5 over and over until you understand nature isnt fluffy .

sentimental fluffy people are actually the worse people you can have if your in that lifeboat or if your those sled dogs , as if your in the lifeboat some of you will survive same with the sled dogs you may be skinny and have a hard time but you will have a chance to live if you have the right attitude in charge .

bad times are coming not fat easy times , read a bit about people who lived in hard conditions they had hard ways or they died .

we are going to have a terrible hard time in this country anyone who doesnt see thats daft

sentimental fluffy people are actually the worse people you can have

Spot on.

They are a hazard for several reasons:

1. They will often be physically weak - which could be a major disadvantage in many situations.

2. Their reasoning will probably be too slow and too woolly to match any crisis situation.
"Ooh, there's a nasty man with a gun. Let's reason with him. Ooh, he seems to have glazed eyes and a necklace made from human ears. My good man, let's discuss this sensibly ...." <bang>

3. I suspect that deep down many of this personality type believe that they are "better" than the brutish workers and so they will expect - or wangle - positions of privilege.
"I used to be a Staff Care Manager - I'm probably the best qualified to look after the food stocks. It's a shame that this will keep me indoors in the warm, away from my friends working in the fields. I'll need a uniform and a badge of course."

4. Many will turn out to be true turn-coats - once their lives are threatened they will suddenly "forget" their touchy-feely liberalism in order to get/keep that seat on the lifeboat.
"I'll help you throw the weak ones overboard, Captain".

clv101 wrote:I think CERA's oil forecasts are more probable that us solving "the greed of the few, the unwillingness to be nice to each other" in the next few decades.

Poor analogy. CERA forecasts are either right or wrong. Understanding that the problem is not the physical capacity of the planet to provide food but the human willingness so to do allows us to focus our efforts in a useful direction.

biffvernon wrote:

It is a shocking fact that should have awakened humanity to the realization that something is dreadfully wrong.

<snip >I also urge caution about exagerating the influence of oil. It may dominate the 'Western' lifesyle but there are a very great many people on the Earth who use very litttle oil. I happen to be one of those who believe that 9 billion people can be well fed and live happily on this one planet. What stops it happening is the greed of the few, the unwillingness to be nice to each other and a good deal of stupidity. These are difficult problems but are potentially solvable.

I'd be interested to know how many people are fed without the use of oil based fertilisers. I guess there may be many such people in areas which are actually going to suffer badly from climate change. It's that `dead heat` again between PO and climate change. I still think the GEO-4 document's `Security first` will be the foremost motivting factor, and that isn't going to help. Sorry to post it again, but for those who haven't seen it http://paulchefurka.com/WEAP/WEAP.pdf also shows how the population might be expected to crash.

The article mentions climate change, but doesn't really focus on it. Professor James Lovelock's view of `a few breeding pairs in the Antartic` seems less and less far fetched.

Thanks for the story jonny2mad... nice way of putting it... I believe the captain made the best of a bad situation. I would feel guilty to suggest he was guilty. He didn't create the situation, he solved it the best way he could.

use of oil based fertilisers

Oil based?

Nitrogen fertilisers are NATURAL GAS based, not oil. In terms of volume, the amount used in the entrie UK agricultural market requires less than 1% of current consumption.

Potassium and phosphorus are presumably mined - which obviously takes some diesel for the machinery and for transport, but I suspect the volume of diesel required is rather small? Could it be electrified?

Also - 40% of China's fertiliser comes from coal - apparentley!

jonny2mad wrote: <snip>

If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?

<snip>

Not guilty. He did exactly the right thing.

That reminds me of question we were asked during an ecology lecture. We were asked: "Your father and brother are drowning in a river. You can only save one of them, which one do you choose and why?"

Each of us answered in turn, with various justifications of why they chose father or brother. When it came to me I asked if I could answer last, as I was pretty sure I knew how the rest of the class would answer.

My reply was: "Neither of them. Father has done his job by breeding and brother dear is my direct competition."

Vortex wrote:3. I suspect that deep down many of this personality type believe that they are "better" than the brutish workers and so they will expect - or wangle - positions of privilege.
"I used to be a Staff Care Manager - I'm probably the best qualified to look after the food stocks. It's a shame that this will keep me indoors in the warm, away from my friends working in the fields. I'll need a uniform and a badge of course."

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

I agree with your other points as well, that third one just amused me slightly.

smithy wrote:I'd be interested to know how many people are fed without the use of oil based fertilisers.

Totally_Baffled wrote: Oil based?

Nitrogen fertilisers are NATURAL GAS based, not oil. In terms of volume, the amount used in the entrie UK agricultural market requires less than 1% of current consumption.

But hydrogen and nitrogen must be combined under high pressure - presumably that requires some energy and fossil fuel use (probably oil?).

Also often the hydrogen used in the manufacture of ammonia (for fertilisers) is derived from the cracking process of plastic manufacture and is therefore oil derived. Globally this is no doubt important.

Of course natural gas is a fossil fuel - I think a question on how many people could be fed with out the use of oil or fossil fuel based fertilisers is a valid one.

Sally wrote: I think a question on how many people could be fed with out the use of oil or fossil fuel based fertilisers is a valid one.

Maybe about 9 billion? Of course it wouldn't be the sort of agriculture practiced in some parts of the world today. There might be a lot more labour (but increased population makes labour cheap relative to non-existent fossil fuel) and a lot more effort in recycling nutrients and organic material. Think permaculture allotments. No fossil fuel derived fertilizers are essential for farming. We've just got used to using them recently as they have been so cheap.

jonny2mad wrote:If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided

Of course the captain would be guilty.

You are confusing two separate societies and conflating the consequences into a normative rule based paradigm.

If that situation happened today the captain would be found guilty of murder see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regina_v._ ... 6_Stephens

However if you are stating that the captain could do the act because he was the biggest and quickest in the boat and could pronounce in god like judgement who will live and die because there are NOT ANY RULES in society, then you are probably right.
In a society with no rules there are no juries.

biffvernon wrote: No fossil fuel derived fertilizers are essential for farming. We've just got used to using them recently as they have been so cheap.

Agreed.

However unfortunately the effects of using artificial fertilisers are not neutral. Using this type of fertiliser escalates production rates and so speeds up the removal of other substances from the soil such as organic matter and trace elements. Returning the land to full fertility after these practices is not straight forward.

Permaculture techniques can be very productive (and I'm all for them) however they rely on access to additional organic material from outside the growing area.

Restoring large swathes of agricultural land after the petroleum-agro-era will not be as simple as building some permaculture beds here in my garden.

Remember every crop taken from a petro-fertilised field removed organic matter (as food and non-food "waste") from the land and transported it to somewhere else. Much of this organic matter then ended up in land fills or, after consumption, being flushed down a toilet and so being removed permanently from the natural cycle on the land itself.

Therefore land we return to is in much worse shape than it was before our petro-fuelled miscalculation!

Growing food on many of these depleted fields will feel like trying to suck oil from an old oil well.

Put simply, although we don't need artificial fertilisers to farm, we cannot now expect the same global productivity without them as we had with them - or even as we had before them.

I'm not saying that changing world agriculture to a system that can feed nine billion people without fossil fuel inputs is easy or simple, but I do believe it to be possible.

One must be careful about generalizations - every field and every season is different - but it's wrong to assume that permaculture always requires external organic or mineral inputs.

Growing a crop involves capturing CO2 from the air by photosynthesis and minerals from the soil, the breakdown products of the underlying rocks. Fertilizers are only needed when minerals are taken away in the harvested crop faster than can be replaced by the natural soil forming processes. Nitrogen drops from the sky in thunderstorms and is captured by some algae and bacteria in the soil and in roots of some plants. (Sometimes too much nitrate fertiliser makes the crop heavier but adds little to its nutritional value.)

Composting vegetable waste and returning sewage to the land helps maintain a closed system. Adding charcoal from a pyrolosis treatment of vegetable and timber waste is likely to become a major feature of future agriculture, capturing and storing atmospheric carbon, generating power and increasing soil fertility in one go. Read up about Terra Preta.

Doing without fossil fuels in agricuture does not mean returning to the Middle Ages. We know so much more. We can produce biodiesel for our tractors - much more efficient in most cases than the heavy horse, if less romantic. We know much more about plant breeding and physiology, weed and pest management, and human nutrition.

We know what to do and how to do it but right now fossil fuels are still too cheap to make the change. The transition will, of course, take time and the critical thing is whether the oil deplation rate will allow us enough time. We need to do as much as possible to prepare now but that doesn't include moaning that we're all doomed.