Tag Archives: australian
Crop Crisis: Why Global Grain Demand Will Outstrip Supply
To meet global demand, grain production needs to double by 2050. It’s not going to make it. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center Since the time of Malthus, humanity has worried whether there would be enough food to feed the growing population. Such fears were always overcome and doomsayers all proven wrong: there was always more land to grow our crops when existing croplands failed to deliver, and new ways to get more yield from old crops. Today our planet appears very finite, and the only places to expand agriculture are in our remnant natural grasslands and tropical forests. And the demand for more agricultural crops is relentless, due to not only our rising population, but more importantly, our rising prosperity. The expected 4 billion new members of the middle class who will join the rest of us by 2050 will likely demand more dairy and meat. These require an enormous amount of grains to produce. Add to these the demands biofuel places on agriculture, and we need to boost global agricultural production by 60% to 110% by 2050. To put this challenge in a time perspective, that kind of increase took our ancestors 10,000 years to achieve. So how are we doing? My research team recently published an analysis in PLOS ONE of the local to global scale performance of maize, rice, wheat and soybeans. These are the top four global crops, collectively responsible for nearly two-thirds of all agricultural calorie production. We found that current rates of productivity improvements are nowhere near the rates of productivity gains (2.4% per year) required for growing demand. Instead of the required doubling of crop production by 2050, at this rate the yield increase will be only 38% to 67%, with the problem more acute for rice and wheat. Australia, is the ninth largest global producer of wheat and a major exporter. Its wheat yields have declined at 0.7% per year. In fact, we observed negative yield trends in around 80% of Australia’s wheat cropland areas. Productivity was rising in only a few of the important wheat cropland areas: the South Eastern statistical division in New South Wales; Darling Downs in Queensland; Goulburn, Western district and Central Highlands in Victoria; south eastern region in Western Australia; and outer Adelaide, Murray Lands, and Eyre in South Australia. Even in these regions the rates of wheat productivity improvements were below the 2.4% rate required to double wheat production, except for south eastern region of New South Wales, where we estimated the rate to be 3.4% per year. Does this mean Australians won’t be able to feed themselves, much less feed others, with wheat? It seems very unlikely at only 0.7% per yearly declines. This decline however may worsen as Australian agriculture matures. Australian wheat yields are limited by lack of nutrients and of water, with the latter being a bigger factor as we reported in a paper published in Nature last year. In some areas of Australia wheat productivity was already at the maximum possible value. Looking beyond Australia, we found many countries where the gains in crop productivity are less than those required to keep pace with their population growth. In several countries – such as Guatemala and Kenya – productivity of maize, a significant source of daily dietary energy, is declining and population is growing. In Indonesia – the third largest rice-producing nation on Earth where rice provides about 49% of daily dietary energy – productivity gain is too low to keep pace with population growth. In India, China, Philippines and Nepal, productivity improvement rates in rice are just about enough to maintain per capita production at current levels. Although supply will not meet demand by 2050, all is not lost. We can close the demand–supply gap in one of many ways. We can invest more to boost crop productivity in the faltering regions that we identified. We can bring more of our remaining natural lands under production (but wheat alone would require 95 million additional hectares, more than the total area of New South Wales). We can reduce food waste, which already accounts for nearly half of global crop production (unfortunately, waste sometimes is difficult and expensive to reduce, as in developing nations where it occurs between farm and table due to lack of storage and transportation). Perhaps most controversially, we can change to more plant-based diets. Nobody really knows what members of the new middle class will choose to eat. History shows time and again that as people join the middle class, they look for more dairy and meat. But if they go against previous trends and decide to keep consumption of animal products low – if those of us already in the middle class reduce our meat consumption – we may all have enough to eat after all. 20 June 2013 Continue reading
Carbon’s Unburnable Truth
21/03/13 The coal industry has made a feeble attempt to pop the concept of the carbon bubble and its investment consequences. The Australian Coal Association commissioned Alan Oxley to examine The Climate Institute and Carbon Tracker’s recent research into Australia’s Unburnable Carbon. Oxley attacked the carbon bubble concept in the AFR yesterday. If you accept the science of climate change, the carbon bubble concept is based on a simple unburnable truth. There is a limited budget for the heat trapping greenhouse gases we can put in the atmosphere to avoid global warming goals. Our research, and that of the International Energy Agency amongst others, examines the budget in terms of the goal that Australia, China and the US amongst over 190 other countries have agreed upon, of avoiding global warming of two degrees. This research is not the realm of radicals or “extremists” as the Minerals Council of Australia would have it. Two years ago the now CEO of Anglo American Mark Cutifani said “… the global carbon budget makes simple logical sense.” Investors like Warren Buffett and Jeremy Grantham have embraced the concept and begun applying it. Just last week investors representing $22.5 trillion held an historic summit in Hong Kong focused on their role in avoiding the economic costs of dangerous climate change and launched a new global low carbon investment register. Central to Oxley’s arguments is that national governments are unable or incapable of organising to avoid two degree warming and that investors should stick to their knitting and avoid public interest goals not supported by policy. In Oxley’s report he makes the old short-termist argument that the job of business is to maximise profits within current policy. This ignores the very real interest that investors such as superannuation and insurance funds should have, and are beginning to take, in the consequence of their investments. These funds are both legally obliged to manage funds for long term outcomes and invest in a range of asset classes that will take, and arguably are already taking, climate hits. They are awaking to the fact that their old ways of investing actually add to the risks they are now attempting to manage. Limiting average global warming to two degrees above pre-industrial levels is an extremely challenging task especially as there is already almost one degree warming with 1.4 degrees locked in by lag effects. There are however a number of social, political and technological scenarios where effective action to avoid two degrees warming will be taken. We don’t pretend to predict the exact course, but the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank – hardly a bunch of left-wing greenie extremists – are warning of the economic consequences if we don’t. Global leaders at the G8 concluded its meeting two days ago with a communique restating their commitment to this goal noting “climate change is one of the foremost challenges for our future economic growth and wellbeing.” The history of financial bubbles, such as the dot.com and sub-prime mortgage bubbles, is based on the assumption of never ending demand. History has shown those assumptions to be high risk indeed. All bubbles are theories until they crash. This bubble rests on very solid foundations of basic carbon physics and budgets. Contrary to Oxley’s claim yesterday, nowhere does the IEA say there is “little risk” of stranded assets for the coal industry. The IEA report does say that, for its two degree scenario, “more than two thirds of current proven fossil-fuel reserves are not commercialised unless carbon capture and storage is widely deployed.” The prospects of that are not good at the moment – the prospects of a bubble are therefore real, exposing as bizarre the report’s claims that a mining company’s reserves of fossil fuels are disconnected to its valuation by the market. It should be noted that The Climate Institute can hardly by labelled as ignoring the importance of carbon capture and storage. We have repeatedly called on industry and government to speed up the technology’s deployment, and have been public on why Australia and the world should pursue it. The ACA on the other hand appears in retreat, turning its billion dollar Coal21 fund, previously focused on low emissions technology into a vast slush fund now also able to “promote the use of coal.” Finally, our analysis challenges current valuation methods but does not, as Oxley’s report falsely asserts, call for full divestment. Our call is for far greater consideration and disclosure of carbon and climate risks from investors, as well as greater investment in low carbon solutions. In that we are joining and being joined by a swelling rank of NGOs investors and regulators. Denying the concept of the carbon budget is like denying climate science. That is carbon’s unburnable truth. This article was originally published in The Australian Financial Review (online). Republished with permission of the author. John Connor is CEO of The Climate Institute. Read more: http://www.businesss…h#ixzz2WrSQmCwt Continue reading
We’re Putting A Price On Carbon, But Is It Making A Difference?
More than 20% of global emissions are now either taxed or traded. But the question remains: will adding economic incentives to cleaner energy actually work? Putting a price on carbon emissions is seen as crucial to curbing climate change. And the good news is that much of the world is doing just that (though not the U.S.). A new report from the World Bank identifies 40 national, and 20 sub-national, mechanisms globally. The European Union, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand all now have emissions trading systems, or are implementing them. Other countries, like Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Japan, Norway, and South Africa have (or are implementing) carbon taxes. And then there are regional trading initiatives, such are those in California and Quebec. The fact that so many carbon pricing schemes have emerged shows a political will to mitigate greenhouse gases. Altogether, current schemes cover more than 20% of global emissions. And with China, Brazil and Chile all considering carbon trading, the prospect is for far more to be covered–perhaps up to 50%. “The fact that so many carbon pricing schemes have emerged shows a political will to mitigate greenhouse gases as countries increasingly use carbon pricing to deliver benefits both to our climate and to a sustainable economy,” says Joëlle Chassard, of the World Bank’s Carbon Finance Unit. “A transition towards a new generation of carbon markets is in the making.” What is more, the World Bank sees hopeful signs in links between schemes: for example, between E.U. and Australian systems, and California’s and Quebec’s. In time, such relationships could be a “step towards establishing a global carbon market,” it says. And, newer entrants are learning from earlier mistakes. The price of carbon in the EU’s system has collapsed several times, notably during the recession. So, the new schemes are putting in “price floors,” or stopping participants from hoarding allowances (a major problem in Europe). Still, the Bank isn’t exactly confident about averting dangerous global warming–which is the question that matters. “The international community has agreed to limit the increase in average global temperature to 2 degrees Celsius (°C) above pre-industrial levels,” it says. “The current level of action puts us on a pathway towards a 3.5–4°C warmer world by the end of this century.” And, the effectiveness of mechanisms like carbon trading remains in doubt. Emissions in Europe–our best test case–have fallen. But this was in a faltering economy, when businesses and individuals use less energy. A price in itself is meaningless; what matters is the number. So, it’s good news that more of the world is pricing carbon. But we should be wary about banking the outcome. http://www.fastcoexist.com/ Continue reading
