I sure hope you’re right – thanks for clearing that up for me.
perhaps a ill conceived cover name 
These sorts of predictions have been repeated every decade since the early 19th century.
I’ve heard them many times in my lifetime. They haven’t come true so far. Perhaps one day
they will but, given the latest installment, a healthy skepticism is a good idea. People love
Doomsday Scenarios and how it will all go down the tubes if we don’t change our ways–see
Malthuse.
There are always going to be places where the water table is dropping, where it isn’t raining,
always places
where things are going badly. You go there, make the report and conclude that
the sky is falling.
From what I can tell the largest oil reserves on Earth are just beginning to come online,
especially Canada and Venezuela. Also there appear to be vast reserves of natural gas.
Not to mention oil shale.
I don’t think anybody really knows what Global Warming will do to water supplies, not
impossible that there will be more water. Of course there are dire predictions.
There have always been dire predictions.
All for alternative everything, I am. However it’s worth noting that most of the population problems and
environmental pollution are in the Third World. The first world tends to be ahead of the curve
in making changes. In the USA I believe that immigration has been for a long while our largest
source of population growth. Windmills going up everywhere, hybrid cars rapidly coming
online. Lots of people eating more sensibly. Smoking radically down.
The forces driving population growth in the Third World are finally economic.
To survive in India old poor people need two surviving adult sons, for instance. Given infant mortality
and the fact that plenty of kids are girls, that takes ten children. The key to curbing
population, typically, is lifting the standard of living and providing alternative means
of social security. That seems to be a lesson of history.
Economic growth is probably the best hope of population control, therefore,
and the fact that the
Indian economy has become a dynamo is hopeful.
Again, all for changing our ways, but the best hope for humanity is rapid economic
development, if it’s possible, in the most populous places. That probably
is going to take a good deal of oil. It may be the best hope for the environment
in the long run are policies that, in the Third World, compromise it in the
short run.
It may have been the same interview that I heard. Pretty impressive. The guy, as you say, indicated that the easiest way to dramatically reduce one’s carbon footprint is through refusing meat. He called it the “low-lying fruit” of global warming…and then corrected himself and called it the “low-lying pork chop.”
Every time some of you guys have a few steaks for dinner
you are eating my vegan year’s supply of grains.
Put another way, at one meal, you have just eaten 2 weeks’ staple supply of an impoverished Indian family of 7.
Then some you have the nerve to put your coffee shoptalk lens on Asia and freak about overpopulation.
You need to contextualise this true observation.
You see, what happens if your steak comes from Brazil or Australia
(as it does for many non-brazilian and non-ozzie steak eaters)?
You get it now?
And then, where does the 23 kilo of grain to feed every kilo of cattle come from?
Is it all grown on the ranch?
In this modern world, transport of foodstuffs is a factor in almost every calculation.
The issue turns on comparison.
Comparison of actuals and of potentials.
Then by extension, if I eat a steak every day for a week, that should help reduce the population of India by at least 7, probably more.
How many more Indians will starve if I slather on a bit of bearnaise sauce? After all, it does have egg and butter in it.
How about veal? Will more or fewer Indians starve if I eat veal?
Sorry – I refuse to feel guilty. If I ate veal saltimbocca for lunch and tenderloin medallions with bearnaise for dinner every day for a year (and I easily could), I would hardly make a dent in the population of India.
One of the more disturbing images staying with me from watching the second episode of “Future of Food” (BBC2) were the herds of cattle penned in on concrete pens. George Alagiah said that it is common praxis in the US to keep the cattle penned that way for the last six months of their life, in order to give maximum monetary return on feedmoney put in. Not only is such meat production not very nice for the animals, but it consumes huge amounts of grain and water. An Indian man interviewed said that one steak meal of such grain-fed cattle could comparatively feed 40 people in India.
Of course this does not mean that US steak eaters are taking the food away from starving Indians. But it shows the disproportional use of resources. Combine that with the knowledge that oil will get more and more expensive, and water more and more precious, and you see that it is a totally unsustainable method of producing meat. And I don’t believe that, if you eat meat every day, by cutting out on steak once a week you do a lot to make the situation better.
Compare that to meat from entirely pasture raised animals, from pasture land which is not fit for growing grain, like (in Britain) hill farms. There you have a sustainable way, and much better quality meat as well. But it is more expensive. So people can afford less, and will in future adapt to eat less, much for the benefit for the diet.
Meanwhile in India the government decided to turn over vast amounts of land to grow biofuel crops, in order to produce 20% of the countries diesel needs from biofuel. And the local poor people starting to fight such land use, because for them it is catastrophic, as they have no use for such crops and cannot use the land to support them. So there one can see the sharp end of a growing conflict between biofuels for the cars of the affluent and food to feed everyone.
I think you can see a similar conflict in Brazil too, with the catastrophic side effect of loosing the rain forests of the amazon. Cane sugar for ethanol fuel. And soya to feed the world’s cattle. Happy are the burger kings.
In time this conflict will emerge in the industrialised countries as well, as oil looses its “cheap energy” status and local food production becomes much more important.
That should be comforting to vegetarians, of which I am one.
Contextualised?
To put into context.
Carbon footprint.
Bananas from Brazil V Beef from Brazil.
ie (say)
0.5 kilo grain V 23 kilo of grain
therefore (say)
0.5 X transportation without refrigeration V 23 X transportation with refrigeration
etc etc
NO mate. It just reduces your right to point at “overpopulation” as the cause of the global food shortage.
If the only flesh foods that were eaten were to come from pasture fed only animals, home run chooks etc, and game fishing there would be enough grain and lentils to feed the current billion starving people three times over.