Very, very good news: food from the desert

I try to avoid exaggeration. But the word "very" was repeated in the title to shout out the importance of an agricultural advance here in Australia.

Out in the scrub desert of South Australia, Sundrop Farms is operating a huge greenhouse producing food with no fresh water from outside . They are using solar energy to desalinate brackish water, and the water becomes an input to a hydroponic growing system.

None of these individual advances are new in themselves. The biggest difference between this and the numerous other hydroponic concepts out there, such as vertical farming, is that the Sundrop process has already proven itself to be economically viable--and scalable to enormous systems.

We all know that solar energy has yet to prove itself competitive with fossil fuel and nuclear generated electricity. That's why it's still struggling. So it's the economic success of the Sundrop process that is really the big news here.Their approach is completely market-driven: "People want nice-looking veggies. So we're going to make sure that our veggies are nice. So that people actually buy them." Wow, what a concept.

[The inventor of the technology is sniffing with disgust. "Oh, my God, they've sold out to the evil capitalists! I'd much rather tinker in my electricity-free home and never actually feed anyone!" He also hates the fact that they use some natural gas to keep the greenhouse warm at night, so the tomatoes don't look like they have tumors. Darn, only 95% of the energy needs are provided by the sun instead of 100%. How could they be so profligate?]

Even beyond these magnificent accomplishments, the Sundrop process will solve yet another problem, which the article in The Australian doesn't mention.

Ten years ago, the UN Food and Agricultural Organization estimated that 120 million hectares of new farmland would be required by 2030 to avoid massive food insecurity. That's the entire growing area of the US or China. Where in God's name would that come from? Most likely, rain forest. Because you need fresh water to grow things.

But not with the Sundrop approach. So in addition to reducing the demands on the world's fresh water, AND eliminating pesticides, AND eliminating most of the energy costs of agricultural production, the Sundrop process reduces the threat to our diminishing rain forests. As noted before, Sundrop is growing food in the desert. Qatar is the next Sundrop site.

Now, I will grant you, The Australian's paean to this process is rather unquestioning, perhaps even unctuous. A little contemplation raised some concerns:

• Does the process actually work on pure seawater, or only brackish water? What is the fate of the brine (the concentrated salt water left after evaporation)? Does it become an environmental pollutant? This is a serious concern for all desalination processes.
• What estimated lifetime of the system is used to calculate the return on investment? Granted that the desert environment is a good one from the longevity standpoint, many of the components surely require refurbishment over time.
• What level of training is required for the operators? The article emphasizes the complexity of the system. Could people of average education in developing nations be qualified to operate the system successfully?
• How is harvesting accomplished? If harvesting is manual, where are the workers to live? In the desert? If harvesting is automated, there are energy costs, capital investment and maintenance to factor in.
• Do the exterior surfaces, particularly the mirrors, require cleaning? How is that done, and how often? Is fresh water required? This has killed many solar power projects located in deserts.
• How robust are the pest control and pollinator solutions?

I will try to explore these questions with the developers. In the meantime, let's pray that there is some workable answer to each of these, that does not fail as the process is scaled up to levels of production that matter.

Now imagine the wealthy, developed nations and nongovernmental organizations getting onboard with Sundrop in a big way, placing a big bet on the technology. How about starting in sub-Saharan Africa, where food shortages are both chronic and acute? How about some aggressive, coordinated trial investments by:

• the USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service,  including its Office of Capacity Building and Development
• Oxfam
• the Gates Foundation
• the Catholic Church
• agribusinesses (Cargill, ADM, Monsanto)

The Sundrop Farms technology represents great hope for the Century of Scarcity. I close with a quotation from the Holy Bible, which amazingly was today's daily reading in the Catholic lectionary: (Isaiah 41: 17-20)

¹⁷ “The poor and needy search for water,
    but there is none;
    their tongues are parched with thirst.
But I the Lord will answer them;
    I, the God of Israel, will not forsake them.
¹⁸ I will make rivers flow on barren heights,
    and springs within the valleys.
I will turn the desert into pools of water,
    and the parched ground into springs.
¹⁹ I will put in the desert
    the cedar and the acacia, the myrtle and the olive.
I will set junipers in the wasteland,
    the fir and the cypress together,
²⁰ so that people may see and know,
    may consider and understand,
that the hand of the Lord has done this,
    that the Holy One of Israel has created it."

Food prices spike--again

Alan Bjerga examined, in his excellent book "Endless Appetites," the behavior of markets during the food price spikes of 2007-8 and 2010.

Well, as expected, it's happening again . US droughts and excessive UK rainfall have damaged grain crops in both nations.

In our October 20 blog entry, we gave a link to a BBC story centered on the US drought. The price rises are essentially inevitable in the near term.

What direction on climate?

The talks starting in Doha are looking like they're going to stumble . To me, that's not surprising. There is more recognition now than at Kyoto that aggressive measures to curb carbon emissions are also likely to curb economies--and this might not be the best time for that. Also, some energy moves are happening independent of Kyoto, like a big shift to natural gas . Two things to know about natural gas: (1) it's actually economical, unlike renewables, and (2) for the same energy output, there's 60% less CO2 emitted--not perfect but a big improvement.

It's worth pondering this quote from MIT Technology Review:

"UCSD's David ­Victor, for one, estimates that a modern gas-fired power plant emits roughly two-fifths as much carbon as even a new coal plant. According to his calculations, the United States is saving about 400 million metric tons of carbon emissions annually in the recent switch to natural gas from coal. That's roughly twice as much progress as the European Union has made in complying with the Kyoto Protocol through policy efforts. 'There is no single event that has had as large and sustained an impact on carbon emissions as the gas revolution,' he says."

So climate negotiators need to get their heads around these things. They need to figure out how to support technologies that are ready for prime time. And carbon control measures need to support economies, not hamstring them.

Doing more with no more

One of the challenges of providing adequate food in the 21st century will be the development of new agricultural land. A ten-year-old publication of UN FAO estimated that 120 million hectares of new farmland would be required. It is hard to see how that could be achieved without an increase in the destruction of ecosystems such as rainforests.

One of the challenges of combatting hunger is preventing malnutrition caused by insufficient micronutrients in the diet. This letter in Science magazine suggests that the micronutrient problem could be addressed using available croplands. It is critical that its recommendations are implemented fully.

Creating some momentum after Rio+20

The palpable disappointment following the Rio+20 sustainable development conference cast a pall on sustainability thinking in general. What does it take to motivate nations to change?

One thinker, Edward Barbier, has put forward three near-term actions in an article in Science magazine. Since many of you probably don't subscribe to Science, I'm giving it a tiny amount of added publicity.

Basically Barbier, at the University of Wyoming, is saying that sustainability and development have been separate and cannot remain so; that sustainability has no priority in the thinking of governments; and that even the UN has no body to push sustainability initiatives. He cites the World Health Organization and the International Labor Organization as UN bodies that are effective because they have mandates.

But perhaps the most exciting thing in Barbier's piece was a discussion about how to raise funds for development. He cited a Gates Foundation study of which I was unaware. Bill Gates discusses in great detail how to finance global development using several untapped and largely painless sources.

A nice summary

The BBC has put together a nine-minute video , centered around the US drought, that nicely pulls together all of the resource issues facing the world in this century.

A very small war

There are some flashpoints in the world that could involve major powers. Numerous resource-rich islands in the Western Pacific, for instance, have recently fueled tensions between China and its neighbors.

But large nations have diplomatic sophistication, and numerous reasons not to allow their conflicts to escalate to the point of violence. Not so on a smaller scale. Where people live near the edge of starvation anyway, the use of violence to gain access to resources is often the only option.

Today, clashes in rural Kenya have killed at least 38 people . Over 50 more were killed last month. Some goat-herds needed grazing land and water that farmers want for their crops. That's all. 88 deaths as a result.

The connection between resource scarcity and war has the potential to grow beyond impoverished zones of developing nations. As this century progresses, will larger nations find the need to feed their people and power their countries so compelling that they will resort to war? Solving resource challenges solves a bigger problem as well: it reduces the threat of military conflict. And in a world with weapons of mass destruction, that is vitally important.

Carbon, renewables and resource scarcity

European governments took the lead, several years ago, in establishing penalties for releasing carbon dioxide into the air, and creating a scheme for "carbon trading." It was a way of tackling a perceived environmental threat that attempted to take into account the complexity of the issue.

Australia has followed suit, and implemented one of the most aggressive carbon taxes, at $26 a tonne. Living here, there has been no lack of opinions and whining about the impact that the tax will have on the Australian economy. Even though the tax has been in place for only a month, there have been scams, cheats and accusations. Recently, almost $50 billion in capital projects have been cancelled by the mining industry here, and some have blamed the tax. It's a much more convenient whipping boy, clearly, than the fact that the Chinese economy has stalled.

But the larger question is: does carbon trading actually enhance sustainability? And does it improve the lot of the massively expanding human population?

Carbon trading would be unnecessary were carbon-neutral processes for energy generation economically viable. But they are not. Various nations and corporations have invested in some of these processes--solar power, wind power, fuel cells--but they have primarily been used for high-tech photo opportunities. Solar power still costs four times what carbon-based power does. Someone has to pay the difference. Small amounts of uneconomical practice can be absorbed, but not large amounts. In addition to the cost issue, there are other, unsolved technical problems, such as the variability of the "renewable" sources, which play havoc with the reliable delivery of electricity. So far, there has been zero improvement to the sustainability of world energy production.

Many developing nations want, and deserve, the higher quality of life that results from affordable energy sources, particularly for electricity and transportation. Can they be given access to this, even given the risk of increased global atmospheric temperatures? In this Century Of Scarcity, one principle must remain inviolate: no amount of carbon policing must be allowed to interfere with the production and distribution of food.

Can technology be the savior?

Recently researchers have posted a new result that could help rice to thrive in poor soils . Yes, it would require genetic modification. So some will object to it on that basis. The moral question--can we object to a technology on the basis of our fears and prejudices, if it will prevent starvation?--raises its head again. This particular discovery may be less objectionable than some other GM approaches, because it involves taking a gene from one rice strain and putting it into another.

But the point I want to make is in the area of technology maturity. Notice that the research findings were in the journal Nature. That means that they are essentially at the level of basic science. What lies ahead for this technology is turning science into product:

• delivering seed by the ton instead of by the handful
• rigorous large-scale field trials
• getting the cost of the technology under control
• addressing the safety issue
• marketing, training, distribution

I have no experience in bringing agricultural technologies to market. But I do have experience in other areas: new materials; robotics; spacecraft; energy. In every case, one can normally count on a couple of DECADES before the technology reaches the marketplace.

Case in point: superconducting wire. It's wonderful stuff--electricity passes through it with no losses. So the use of energy becomes more efficient, with reduced damage to the environment. The materials with the best superconducting properties to date were discovered in 1986. The first application of them in a real power system happened this year.

Waiting for technology to be the savior is twice foolish--because good ideas are unpredictable, and because once they occur, they must still be matured into a useful state.

The "local ripple effect" of the US drought

Bloomberg agricultural reporter Alan Bjerga, often cited in this blog as the author of Endless Appetites, takes a trip to the US Midwest to report on the drought's consequences for agriculture-dependent communities and businesses . The same ripple effect is seen anywhere in the world: when drought hits, it isn't just the farmers who suffer. It is instructive, however, to remember that this is happening in the world's greatest food-exporting nation.

The "global ripple effect" will come later--when all those grain elevators are empty with no 2012 crops to refill them.

Power generation is not enough

In an earlier post, we presented an argument proposing that food crisis events would grow faster than the population. The keystone of that argument was that distribution infrastructure, including the energy needed for transportation, was also under pressure. Therefore even if food supplies grow with the population, the "black swan" events would become more frequent.

The same argument can be applied to water shortages, and to energy shortages. An excellent example of the latter was this week's massive blackout in India. This was not about supply, it was about grid control and connectivity--nearly invisible parts of the infrastructure, where failures have enormous ramifications.

Infrastructure investments bring no immediate reward to the policy makers who fund them. They are largely invisible to the political base. In addition, the very complexity of the infrastructure can daunt even those who are willing to fund improvements.

Instead, political will and a long-term thirst for prosperity must be the drivers of improvement. A superb example is Singapore's progress toward a robust water system, which that small country has pursued since the 1960's.

But in addition to investment, bureaucratic streamlining is often needed as well. Red tape and complexities of officialdom can block access to otherwise functional infrastructures.

Food, energy and water are not only connected to each other; they are connected to the social and economic fabric of each nation. Infrastructure failures reduce economic productivity, which then harms both government and citizen. Lower productivity means a lower tax base, restricting resources for infrastructure upgrades. And lower productivity means lower incomes, so the citizen is less able to save against times of shortage, and more vulnerable to resource variability.

UPDATE: here is additional information on the Indian blackout, which  happened because food, energy and water are really one thing . Water generates electricity; electricity is used to pump water; no water, no food. 

Stating the obvious, on stage

Professor Stephen Emmott, director of Microsoft's lab in Cambridge, UK, believes as I do that the size of the human population is the root cause of the many looming challenges of this century. To dramatize the point, Emmott is staging a performance on the theme at a London theater.

The various reviews don't really say what Emmott does while onstage, other than that he uses crutches because he's hurt his back. But in my book, if it gets attention on this most important of all problems, he's doing something worthwhile.

Hunger and social unrest

One of the premises of this blog is that the "Century of Scarcity" will result, not just in scarcity, but in threats to international security. A study by the New England Complex Systems Institute shows that this may already be happening.

Food price spikes in 2007-8 were closely correlated with petroleum price spikes. This is detailed in Andrew Bjerga's book Endless Appetites, which I've cited in this blog. The more recent NECSI study shows how the food price spikes in 2008 and 2011 were also correlated with outbreaks of social unrest in the Middle East--i.e., the Arab Spring.

The NECSI study raises an alarm. The US drought has pushed up world food prices. So more instability may be on the way in the next several months.

A previous entry in this blog examined the statistical nature of famine events, and whether an increase in population would cause merely a proportional increase in such events, or even more because of interactive effects. The chart from the NECSI study shows that the increase in unrest events is even higher than the food price rise would suggest from mere proportionality:


(NECSI image from Wired article)

Of course, there is more going on here than just food price increases. Social "science" is tough to do scientifically because of all the variables. But what this data does suggest is a "critical system," using the term as it is used in physics: an irreversible, qualitative change in the nature of the system.

Such critical events will become more common as resources are more dear in the Century of Scarcity. As we've stated before, obvious trouble spots will be in the "land grab" locations where nations such as China have leased land to feed their own citizens. Food shortages there will certainly lead to unrest if food is shipped out while the locals go hungry.

A drip of good news in the water picture

A large new aquifer has been found in Namibia.

Not only is that good news for the Namibians. Namibia is reasonably close to the Sahel, where famine is a constant threat . If the new water supply could be used to create a sustainable agricultural system in north Namibia, and the food transported further north, the food security of the entire region could be enhanced. Presumably the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Office of Capacity Building and Development, part of the Foreign Agricultural Service, is factoring in this new discovery.

Methanol--a truly sustainable energy product

Nobel prize-winning chemist George Olah of the University of Southern California has long been a champion of methanol as an alternative fuel. In fact, he has a grand vision of a methanol economy that closes many of the open links in our current energy economy. Olah and his associates have been thinking about aspects of this idea for many years. But as with any grand idea, the question becomes, what is needed to sweep away a massive infrastructure that is already in place?

For one thing, what is needed is customers. Now a Danish company, ECOmove, is offering a methanol-powered car. They call it an electric car, which it must be since its drive motors are electric. But in the US, "electric car" means "car that has batteries, limited range, and must be charged frequently." Chemical fuels have much higher energy densities than batteries, meaning that cars can go farther. ECOmove claims a 500-mile (800 kilometer) range for its vehicle.


(from the ECOmove website)

Perhaps ECOmove has solved the problem of low lifetimes for fuel cells that have plagued methanol concepts until now, and perhaps they haven't. The important thing is the innovation. Having customers will spur further innovations.

As a friend says, "Food, energy and water are one thing." Methanol can be produced from a variety of materials including farm waste. Having a second product can help stabilize farm incomes and make them more sustainable. Beyond transportation in developed nations, the use of biofuels that DON'T compete with food for arable land would be an important advance in sustainability.

A big water problem in a wealthy nation

Clearly, water scarcities will cause the greatest hardships in the poorest nations--those with the fewest options for engineered alternatives. But water issues in developed countries can also harm the most vulnerable, especially if those have the potential to diminish foodstuffs available for export.

Australia is a very wealthy nation and a major agricultural exporter. On the eastern half of the country is the Murray-Darling Basin, named for the two huge river systems that flow through it:

This is an enormous region. It is over one million square kilometers, 14% of the entire land area of Australia, or twice the area of California--however you want to look at it. Other facts that are important for this blog:

• Basin generates 39% of the national income derived from agricultural production
• Produces 53% of Australian cereals grown for grain, 95% of oranges, and 54% of apples
• Supports 28% of the nation’s cattle herd, 45% of sheep, and 62% of pigs.

Agricultural productivity in the MDB has been estimated at $15 billion. There is also probably over $1B in recreational fishing activity. So not only is the Murray-Darling Basin big, it is important. It is a huge food-producing machine. And Australia exports a lot of that food.

Some of the agriculture in the MDB (40%) uses irrigation. As in many nations today, there has been over-pumping. Extraction from the Murray and Darling rivers has led to numerous environmental problems including:

• excessive downstream salinity
• hypoxic blackwater events
• cyanobacteria blooms
• acid sulphate soil impacts
• reduction in native fish species

The Basin crosses the boundaries of four Australian states, each of which has its own concerns. For example, South Australia, downstream, is concerned about salininty; New South Wales, upstream, wants to irrigate.

To enable progress in the midst of disagreement, the national government created the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and charged it to come up with a plan that returned more water to the environment, while minimizing the economic impacts to the region. The first version of the plan was centered around a 40% reduction in irrigation. Farmers were so pleased with that that they conducted public burnings of copies of the plan.

Oh, forgot to mention: this planning was going on as MDB farmers were recovering from the "millennium drought": many were forced out of agriculture or into bankruptcy. No doubt that made the irrigation-reduction pill somewhat hard to swallow.





(Photo from the website of the Australia TEA party. "Julia" is of course the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard.)

The Authority has released a revised draft of the Basin Plan, sent it to the State governments, and is preparing a response to their comments. The revised plan reduces the irrigation reduction to about 20%, and asserts that the net reduction in the Basin economy will be only about 1%. That assumes, however, a shift in economic activity from agriculture to other income sources such as fishing, boating and tourism. Which means less food available for export.

And ironically, the protests, now, are starting to come from the environmental community, who say that the amount of water returned to the environment isn't enough.






(Photo from the website of the Weekly Times of Australia.)

The lesson is that agriculture has an INESCAPABLE effect on the environment; yet we are entering a period of human history where the danger of mass starvation has never been greater. Australia's attempt to resolve this dilemma is instructive and troubling at the same time.

A high-profile grant for a GM crop effort

The Gates Foundation, apparently unafraid of controversy, has made a $10M award to a research effort in genetically modifying cereal crops. The scientific concept is to enable the crops to fix nitrogen--just like some legumes do, but in this case acting as a "self-fertilizer." The goal is higher yields in places that can't afford artificial fertilizers--such as much of Africa.

Near the bottom of the article, a GM critic mentions that the promise of GM crops to increase yields has yet to be realized. That by itself doesn't seem like a good reason to curtail research, when the promise is so great. Other funding organizations, such as the UK's Agricultural Biotechnology Council, appear to be getting on the bandwagon.

On the other hand,  some concerns exist. Prudence dictates the use of controlled growing environments with EACH new GM crop to ensure safety.

The Singapore Water Expo

The Singapore Water Expo is part of Singapore International Water Week. At the Expo, 650 companies displayed their technologies for improving water cleanliness, dealing with wastewater, and protecting the environment. There were some very big players represented, in addition to the hundreds of smaller ones:

Singapore is a meaningful venue for a water conference. Here's what I learned from my cabbie: "When we achieved independence, we had only three reservoirs. Now we have ten. One bay has been dammed off and converted from salt to fresh water. We buy water from Malaysia but soon we should become water independent. We collect rainwater runoff and purify it. There are severe fines for washing your car and letting the runoff go into the drains." The Singapore water agency PUB is applying state-of-the-art technologies, with a patented variable salinity processes and research into membranes containing water-transporting aquaporin proteins:

A  feature of the Expo that struck me was its focus on URBAN water systems. I came naively looking for solutions for the developing nations and isolated locations. Urban systems are of course critical, as the world moves toward 70% urban. Livable cities was a key topic at Rio+20, and of course water access is a primary issue in that regard. I wonder what fraction of the 1.2 billion people said to lack access to clean water are in cities, and what fraction in rural areas.

Product categories at the Expo were roughly grouped into:

• membranes and filtration
• piping, pipe inspection and repair (including an emphasis on "trenchless" or in-place repair)
• instrumentation and control
• pumps
• solid waste systems, such as dryers, strainers, etc.
• engineering services

The atmosphere was one of great technological advances in water systems. Some of the exciting ideas:

• GE's membrane system integrated with wind power, which used the turbine to create water pressure directly rather than first creating electricity and then using that to power an electric pump
• A wide variety of robots for remote piping inspection and repair
• Numerous new membrane technologies

An exception to the large urban emphasis was this small, self-contained purification system for remote areas:

The technical progress in water systems is very encouraging. But as the UN's World Water Development Report-3 emphasizes, investment in water systems will be necessary to ward off catastrophe. None of the technologies on display at the Expo looked inexpensive!

Seeking hope in plant biology

Plant biologists are at work exploring both fundamental principles and applied techniques to find new benefits for humanity from plants.

Surely the efforts to change the photosynthetic mechanism of rice are not without controversy. But should they be successful, the rice-dependent populations of Asia will have increased food security.

The denouement of Rio+20

The declaration of 19 June was adopted by the principals, amid frustration from environmentalists and advocates. Grassroots and indigenous organizations seemed to display the most indignant reactions as the conference wound down.

The focus of Rio+20 was sustainability, supposedly. There seems to be a mood to blame corporate power for the failure of the conference. But the real problem was there were too many rice bowls to be filled. The definition of sustainability seemed to be SO broad that it would have been difficult to resolve all the interactions and conflicts between the interests of all the groups represented. "Indigenous rights were not made a part of the declaration"--is that a key sustainability issue? Really?

Work will go forward on sustainable development goals. That's positive.

The focus of THIS blog is scarcity--food, energy and water. Perhaps the world would be more urgently served by a UN Conference on Starvation. The food problem is just too large for the UN Food and Agriculture Organization to solve on its own. Serious resource commitments by developed nations will be needed to prevent widespread famine by the time population reaches 9 billion.

And while we're dreaming up UN conferences, perhaps another on Energy Justice, and a third on Water Equity, would also help to achieve progress on these real, tangible, near-term crises.

There's still hope at Rio

It's interesting listening to coverage of Rio on Australian televsion. The coverage is frequent and extensive--I'm guessing that's not the case in the US.

An Australian official observer, Don Henry of the Australian Conservation Foundation, was extensively interviewed by ABC News (the Australian Broadcasting Company). His take was similar to that of the BBC reporting--the draft statement is very weak. But he also held out two threads of hope:
--it is still possible for the leaders gathered in Rio to produce an action statement that goes beyond the diluted draft statement
--the leadership is hearing about the world's sustainability and poverty problems, which could lead to action after the conference.

Henry also held up the importance of Sustainable Development Goals to be developed in the coming months.

The anticlimactic climax at Rio

The news as the principals meet:

• the UN Secretary General says progress in this area has been too slow.
• the BBC's Richard Black says "there is already a palpable feeling in the corridors that the serious business is over."
• Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs recommends (too late) concentrating on Sustainable Development Goals that mirror the highly effective Millennium Development Goals.
• some scientists think that the growing human population may be a problem. Whoa, really?

Sachs' call for SDGs is fine. The Millennium Development Goals have allowed donor nations to communicate effectively with recipient nations--"you achieve these minimum standards, we will provide grants that help you develop key projects." Sustainable Development Goals should take the same approach: measurable, consistent, implementable.

We know that the MDGs have been effective. Some nations, ineligible for Millennium Development Grants because of their low achievements in some areas, still worked to raise their performance so that they might be eligible some day! Now THAT's effective.

In fact, the conference agreement "The Future We Want" does call for the development of SDGs mirroring MDGs, but that will be an extensive process, much longer than the delegations had at Rio. But this is in fact where the serious work will have to take place. In particular, the conflicts and interactions between the myriad of Rio priorities and affirmations will have to be dealt with. The world, after all, has finite resources.

Rio--too many goals, and not the right ones

The best coverage from Rio is by Richard Black of the BBC. There's certainly little in US media.

Naturally the delegates have reached agreement on the declaration language prior to the convening of the principals. How could they not? But the discontent with the document is pretty universal:

--the EU "would like to have seen a more ambitious outcome"
--Friends of the Earth finds it a "damp squib of a draft negotiating text" that shows the talks "lack the firepower needed"
--the UN Secretary General must be displeased that his Sustainable Energy for All initiative is "noted" but not "endorsed"
--water as a challenge does not seem to have generated any action.

I'd say the problem is that everyone and his/her brother had to get their agenda into the document. Perhaps the outcome is not so bad after all, considering that the goals list includes:

• food, energy and water, as noted in an earlier post; 
• the green economy;
• gender equality;
• "promoting full and productive employment, decent work for all, and social protections";
• ocean conservation, including commitments to end illegal and exploitative fishing, support local small-scale fishers, and set up a process that would eventually regulate fishing and protect life on the high seas (a future post will discuss the impact of ocean issues on the Century of Scarcity);
• improvement of life in cities;
• health;
• mountains;
• forests;
• disaster risk reduction;
• small island developing states;
• chemicals and waste;
• land degradation;
• biodiversity;
• eradication of poverty;
• sustainable tourism;
• and buried within, "urgent action on unsustainable production and consumption," but without timetables or concrete actions.

Whew.

There is no discussion of the conflicts and interactions between all of these goals. To give just one example, the conference nourishes a lot of bashing of developed nations for overconsumption; yet it is the economic strength of the developed nations that has lifted so many in the developing world out of poverty.

Let's give a shout out to the Rio delegates for identifying the world's problems. Evidently it will be up to the rest of us to generate the solutions.

The UN forest initiative--helpful or a recipe for starvation?

Here's an interesting UN report being rolled out in Rio: how forests can become part of a sustainable future. Who knew?

To quote from the BBC article, the UN report states that forests "are sources of food, energy and income for a billion of the world's poorest people." A reforestation activity is also being announced, with a goal of 18 million hectares of restored forests. This should also have a beneficial effect on the level of atmospheric CO2.

While the reforestation effort is laudable in itself, there is an unaddressed tension here. In a previous post, we reported that the UN Food and Agriculture Organization believes that it will be possible, barely, to feed the world in 2050. Among the steps that are critically important to avoiding mass starvation: create more farmland. And where is this new land going to come from? The FAO report does not say, and the UN State of the World's Forests report does not bring it up.

Three shopping days until Rio

With three working days to go until the principals' meeting on the 20th, here is what the delegations are working on:  the "zero draft" of the conference agreement, to be known as "The Future We Want."

For the big resource issues--food, energy and water--here are the proposed commitments, extracted from the document:

"Food security
64. We reaffirm the right to food and call upon all States to prioritize sustainable
intensification of food production through increased investment in local food production,
improved access to local and global agri-food markets, and reduced waste throughout the
supply chain, with special attention to women, smallholders, youth, and indigenous farmers.
We are committed to ensuring proper nutrition for our people.
65. We call for more transparent and open trading systems and, where appropriate,
practices that contribute to the stability of food prices and domestic markets; ensure access to
land, water and other resources; and support social protection programmes.
66. We further support initiatives at all levels that improve access to information, enhance
interactions among farmers and experts through education and extension services, and
increase the use of appropriate technologies for sustainable agriculture.
Water
67. We underline the importance of the right to safe and clean drinking water and
sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights.
Furthermore, we highlight the critical importance of water resources for sustainable
development, including poverty and hunger eradication, public health, food security,
hydropower, agriculture and rural development.
68. We recognize the necessity of setting goals for wastewater management, including
reducing water pollution from households, industrial and agricultural sources and promoting
water efficiency, wastewater treatment and the use of wastewater as a resource, particularly
in expanding urban areas.
69. We renew our commitment made in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI)
regarding the development and implementation of integrated water resources management
and water efficiency plans. We reaffirm our commitment to the 2005-2015 International
Decade for Action “Water for Life”. We encourage cooperation initiatives for water
resources management in particular through capacity development, exchange of experiences,
best practices and lessons learned, as well as sharing appropriate environmentally sound
technologies and know-how.
Energy
70. We propose to build on the Sustainable Energy for All initiative launched by the
Secretary-General, with the goals of providing universal access to a basic minimum level of
modern energy services for both consumption and production uses by 2030; improving
energy efficiency at all levels with a view to doubling the rate of improvement by 2030; and
doubling the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix by 2030 through promoting
the development and use of renewable energy sources and technologies in all countries. We
call for provision of adequate financial resources, of sufficient quality and delivered in a
timely manner, to developing countries for providing efficient and wider use of energy
sources.
71. We agree that each country should work for low-carbon development. We encourage
more widespread use of energy planning tools to provide a robust framework for donors and
partners to coordinate their development cooperation efforts."

These take their place along many, many other sustainability issues, such as: quality of life in cities; green jobs; social inclusion; oceans and small island nations; natural disasters; and climate change.

What do you think?

A pessimistic thought: probably the proposed 0.7% GNP commitment from developed nations is going to be a hard sell, or if agreed to will not be honored. For the US, that would amount to $70 billion per annum. Given the state of the debt, that seems like a non-starter.

Three days to go! And the BBC has provided some insight into the disunity prior to the Rio conference. So the path to making the agreement workable will be rocky indeed.

Vertical farming: how important will it be?

Vertical farming is about reuse and recycling of all parts of the ecosystem: "closing the loops" if you will. A relatively large building in Chicago has been converted to growing a wide range of agricultural products.

I wonder how important this might be in China? There arable land is shrinking and the population continues to grow. Vertical farming has some features in common with aquaculture, which is heavily practiced in China. But aquaculture does not have the "loop-closing" feature of vertical farming; and in fact, aquaculture is a significant pollution concern.

The African land grab

An earlier post, "Worse than scarcity," suggested that the Chinese investment in African land leases might create tensions if there were local food shortages. I just came across this excellent graphic, which shows how many wealthy nations are engaging in the African land grab:

But this also proves the point about the tension between land leases and local hardship. Compare this map with the FEWS NET map of food crises in the previous post. At the very least, the foreign investments in Ethiopia, the Sudan and Mali coincide exactly with the food crises happening NOW. So the question is: are any of these leases being used to MITIGATE the food crises? Or is food actually being EXPORTED from the same countries listed as food-insecure?

There will be more crises, and bigger ones

The current food crisis we are being asked to respond to is happening in the Sahel, the stressed region of just-barely-sub-Saharan Africa. Looking at the whole Africa situation on the Famine Early Warning System Network created by the US Government, we can see that the Sahel crisis is really part of a belt stretching the width of Africa:

There appear to be multiple causes for this belt of food insecurity; civil conflict, drought, high prices, and weak infrastructure are probably the most significant. As appeals for help in response to such crises are brought to the world community, we often hear of "donor fatigue." Looking into the future, as food, energy and water availability are challenged globally, how often is the world going to have to respond to such crises?

I will argue that, on a percentage basis, there will be MORE AND LARGER such crises as the years pass. This is NOT based on any pessimism about food production levels. Although concerns abound about food production including the effects of climate change, there appear to be paths forward to make agricultural production meet the demand.

The problem for places like the Sahel as the Century of Scarcity unfolds is going to be in FOOD INFRASTRUCTURE: storage, processing, transportation and distribution. If this infrastructure does not keep pace with demand--and I will argue that it CANNOT--agricultural production increases will not stanch the frequency of food crises and famines. In fact, increases in production may be almost irrelevant to these crises.

The figure below is an attempt to isolate the INFRASTRUCTURE effects from the PRODUCTION levels.

The horizontal direction represents how much food is produced; the vertical direction, how much actually makes it to the consumer. Curve 1, the dashed green curve, represents the ideal situation: every calorie, every gram of protein or fiber, makes it to the person who needs it, even as the amount produced gets larger. That is clearly not happening--for example, we know that 30% of all food produced in Africa is lost due to poor storage--part of the INFRASTRUCTURE problem.

Curve 2, the orange curve, has the following meaning: some food is always going to be lost; but that is a fixed percentage of the total food produced. Could be--but here is what would be required:

• storage facilities, processing plants, distribution centers, and transportation all increase proportionately with agricultural production
• therefore, there must be no COMPETING demands for the resources that build the infrastructure.

But we know that ENERGY will become more dear as well as food. And ENERGY is a key factor in food processing and distribution, as well as for building storage facilities and roads. For this reason among others, the real relationship between food production and consumption will be more like curve 3:  as production increases, the infrastructure WILL NOT keep pace.

At the bottom of the figure are triangles for today's production level, and for a 2050 production level that is 70% higher--the amount estimated by the UN FAO to be needed. The population between now and 2050 will grow by "only" 28%, so perhaps the FAO production increase is intended to make up for the inadequate infrastructure.

But the problem with places like the Sahel is that they are at the end of the MOST DEMANDING distribution chains: long distances from PORTS, where food can be economically delivered by sea. The conclusion is that larger and more frequent food crises are far more likely in the coming decades.

The scarcity summit

In about a month, world leaders and major group representatives will gather in Rio de Janeiro for the UN Conference on Sustainable Development.. One hopes that more will come out of it than, say, the 2009 Copenhagen conference on climate change.

The Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, has laid out goals for the sustainability conference. His "top level" goals:

• Inspire new thinking and action
• Be about people--a people's summit that offers concrete hope for real improvements in daily lives
• Waste not

Within these are some very specific goals. Some of them address the "big three" resource challenges of food, energy and water. Along with them are economic development, environmental and fairness goals.

FOOD

• zero stunting of children's growth (the supplements to make this happen are affordable and easily distributed)
• zero waste of food
• zero waste of agricultural inputs

ENERGY

• advance the Sustainable Energy for All initiative
• doubling of energy efficiency by 2030
• doubling of the use of renewable sources by 2030

WATER

• protect our sources of water

I have to admit to being disappointed in the lack of concrete goals for water. Nevertheless, I recommend reading the Secretary General's opinion piece. I will be following and reporting on progress in Rio.

Can 3D printing technology help ameliorate scarcity?

There is a technology that is about to have as big an impact on manufacturing as the personal computer had on--everything. The technology is called 3D (for three-dimensional) printing. It can build solid, hollow, and complex structures the same way an inkjet printer works--a print head moving back and forth, laying down stuff in a pattern. You just do it layer after layer, and voila--a 3D object.

3D printing would be mildly interesting if you could just do it with plastic. But you can make METAL structures this way--Ducati uses it for motorcycle engine parts; US defense firms use it for jet engine parts; a titanium JAW that was 3D-printed was recently implanted in an elderly patient.. And you can 3D-print with BIOLOGICAL materials--CELLS. A full kidney was built recently.

You can do 3D printing in CHOCOLATE. Tell me that's not going to be big.

This is not in the lab, it is real, presently about a $1 billion industry. It is coming very quickly, and the economic advantages it holds will help it take over the manufacturing sector. Don't take my word for it, take The Economist's. Some of the features:
--you don't need molds or forms. So customizing the shape of something is easier, and you can make things that can't be injection molded or machined.
--the design and manufacturing don't need to occur in the same place.
--much less labor is required than for traditional manufacturing processes, like machining.
--it's much faster too.

Clearly, there is a problem when this takes hold in the developed nations: what's going to happen to all the JOBS in conventional manufacturing?

But that's not the point of this blog. I think there might be a place for 3D printing in developing nations--specifically in the AGRICULTURE sector.

First, let me tell you about a special kind of 3D printing called Contour Crafting.. Contour Crafting is just 3D printing with CONCRETE, on a very large (building size) scale. Contour Crafting was invented by a good friend of mine, Professor Behrokh Khoshnevis of the University of Southern California. He has built whole walls and very complex shapes. And remember, it doesn't need molds or forms! You can make very complex shapes (multiply curved walls, with wires and plumbing inside if you want) with less material, and very quickly. A house could be built in a day.

Professor Khoshnevis already has the vision to use Contour Crafting to make high quality, affordable housing in developing nations. The idea of using it in agriculture is just another application.

30% of all the crops in Africa are lost due to poor storage. What if we were to use Contour Crafting to build durable, high quality storage facilities? The trick will be to be able to use INDIGENOUS, affordable materials--mud, sand, and water, rather than energy-intensive concrete. We think this is possible.

Imagine a Contour Crafting Convoy that drives around Africa building food storage facilities. If local soils, plant materials and solar heating are enough for the buildings, the only imported material would be fuel for the vehicles. They would also carry smaller 3D printers with them to make the other components that would be needed for complete structures--hinges, brackets, doorknobs, whatever.

And what else could we build with these techniques beside food storage? How about vertical planting containers? Irrigation ditches that don't wash away in the rains? 

This could be one of the many, many technology solutions that we will need to ameliorate the coming resource crisis.

Worse than scarcity

It has been said that the struggles for resources in the 21st century could lead to military conflicts. It hadn't been obvious to me that that was actually true. But in looking at two current projects in resource development, one in India and one being done by China, I found some scenarios that could indeed result in military conflicts.

INDIA: THE RIVER-LINKING PROJECT

The extent of the water crisis in India is well-known and here is an excellent summary of it. Notice in particular this indictment from the article: "India’s water crisis is predominantly a manmade problem. India’s climate is not particularly dry, nor is it lacking in rivers and groundwater. Extremely poor management, unclear laws, government corruption, and industrial and human waste have caused this water supply crunch and rendered what water is available practically useless due to the huge quantity of pollution." 

Now, mitigation of human suffering is not exactly a crowning achievement of recent Indian governments. But perhaps they will be motivated to act, as their vaunted economic growth is threatened by the same water issues.

Unfortunately, an old and terrible approach to Indian water resources has suddenly reared its ugly head.  This is the Indian River-Linking Project,, conceived decades ago as a solution for both flooding and drought. In some sense, the river-linking idea is a lot like U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood-control projects in this country. There is one huge difference, however: the Himalayan-origin rivers that will be affected cross into Bangladesh before returning to India. The project will basically turn Bangladesh into a desert.

Obviously, the Bangladeshi military capability can do nothing to India. Bangladeshi interests might, however, resort to extreme measures within its own borders (dynamiting dams, whatever) to deny India the water it would have gotten. This could be an invitation for Indian military incursions into Bangladesh to protect and stabilize the flows. And might China not see this as an opportunity to "defend" Bangladesh with Chinese forces?

We always find these scenarios far-fetched--until they happen. Then we ask, "How could they have been so stupid?" And of course, China and India have capable nuclear arsenals.

CHINA: LEASED AGRICULTURAL LAND IN AFRICA

China leaves no stone unturned in attempting to feed its people. One of the stones that was first turned in the 1960's was Africa. Back then, the Chinese goals were political rather than economic--wooing fellow-travelers in the war against imperialism. Today, however, it would appear that China hopes to make a significant addition to domestic food production through its agricultural investments in Africa. And China is not alone, with South Korea also making big African land plays.

I wish them well. In the best case, this would provide economic stimulus in Africa, and backup food supplies for the all-too-common African famines, as well as a supplement to Chinese production. But here I will quote Alan Bjerga's great book Endless Appetites, the story of the recent worldwide instability in food prices. Alan traveled the world to understand the interconnections of farms, markets and consumers. He observes, "Land grab touches nerves, with its echoes of rich outsiders carving up Africa to exploit its resources and residents."

The perfect storm happens when China actually becomes dependent on such crops as an integral part of its food supply; when a shortage in the producing country causes hungry people to pilfer the crops grown for export; and the local government does nothing to stop them, fearing riots. Could China actually be tempted to send in troops to secure "their" produce? I wouldn't bet against it. And what happens when the poor nation appeals to the world community to protect it against "invasion"?

The "no silver bullet" principle

There are so many worth efforts going on to fight hunger through improved agriculture. An excellent HuffPost Green article gives a long list of worthy efforts. Perhaps with enough such creative, innovative approaches, we really can conquer the coming world resource challenges.

But the article tells a second story as well. Every incidence of food insecurity, every crisis situation, every sustainability issue, is unique. Thirty percent of African produce is lost due to insufficient storage--but how to get the produce from storage to the area of greatest need? What if those areas suffer unexpected (or expected) drought? So there are lots of "green bullets," but no one "silver bullet."

This poses challenges for research--how many people is each new approach going to help? It's a problem for policy, too--how do I spread resources for greatest effectiveness?

A few of us have looked at this problem as an opportunity. There is a whole subfield of computer science called "automated decision support." The achievements in this field have helped decision makers--engineers, designers, analysts, planners--find the good options out of huge numbers of possibilities.

To my knowledge, these powerful tools haven't been applied to food insecurity yet. Perhaps the time has come.

What does Outer Space have to do with it? (last of a series)

Whether or not space operations can provide physical benefits, there is another benefit: their contribution to the human spirit, to hope.

This century is likely to see human agony on a very large scale--not caused by war and genocide, as in the previous century, but simply by the inexorable growth of the human species. That agony will affect the morale of every living person, as ever-improving global communications make it all too real, even for those not living in want. What will the psychological effects be?

We should consider space travel, space exploration, and space science as counterweights. They have been a source of inspiration to humanity for the last 50 years. That inspiration is needed now, more urgently than ever. Astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson has stated this need eloquently to a Congressional committee. He has boldly called for a significant increase in NASA funding, even in these times of tight Federal budgets.

Others have said that space travel drains resources from programs that address more immediate human needs. But no one has a program to "keep up humanity's spirits." That is what continued space exploration has the potential to do.

Our first post on GM crops--and definitely not the last

I'm interrupting the series on Outer Space in reaction to a drama in the UK. Protestors are threatening to "decontaminate," i.e. destroy, an experimental wheat field containing genetically modified crops. The researchers have asked the protest organizations to come in for a dialogue before taking destructive actions.

Whether you are in favor of or opposed to GM crops, there are moral questions to be addressed:

• PRO: how certain are we, and how certain must we be, that GM crops will not affect human health nor surrounding ecosystems?
• CON: in the Century of Scarcity, is your opposition to GM crops justifiable should they offer the possibility of reducing the misery of hunger and starvation?

There is not enough scientific understanding to answer either of these questions. Increased yields and decreased need for pesticides are hypothetical at this point--as are notions of how GM crops might contaminate surrounding genomes.

GM crops are one of many potential approaches for reducing the threat of starvation. We will follow the science.

What does Outer Space have to do with it? (fourth of a series)

I have a confession to make: I've been using asteroid mining as a teaser. There is nothing about that plan that will have an impact on the coming food, energy and water crises here on Earth. EXCEPT: as we continue to learn how to operate in space, especially with robots, we may be able to build things that CAN help to alleviate terrestrial challenges.

I'm referring to SOLAR POWER FROM SPACE. Now, if harvesting stuff from asteroids sounded crazy to you, space solar power is crazy to the fourth power. It involves huge arrays of solar-power stations orbiting the Earth, which also convert the power to microwaves and beam it to receiving stations on the ground.

If we consider doing this with today's equipment, space power is a non-starter. It costs $5,000 to launch one pound of anything into low Earth orbit--and maybe $10,000 to launch it out to the higher orbit where the power station needs to go. At these rates, a power station giving as much power as an Earth nuclear plant would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. That's at least ten times what that Earth plant would cost.

So why even talk about it? Because, slowly but surely, the costs of launching things are coming down. The leadership is not from NASA, but from commercial companies who see a profit in the space business. The demonstrated leader in low-cost launch is Space Exploration Corporation out of Hawthorne, CA--popularly known as SpaceX. (Their next launch is May 7, and it's going to the Space Station. Exciting!) But as they help NASA keep the Station operating, they're also working on a HUGE launch vehicle called Falcon Heavy. It will bring down launch costs by a factor of FIVE.

Also, people are taking baby steps to show that space solar power will actually work. In 2008, an experiment was done off the Haleakala volcano on Maui, showing that power could be beamed over 100 kilometers through the lower atmosphere. And power coming from space only needs to traverse the equivalent of about 20 kilometers of surface air! The leader of this experiment, John Mankins, now has NASA funding to do a study building on these ideas, attempting to design a space solar power concept that's not off-the-charts crazy. John has worldwide interest in his work.

"BUT WHO CARES?"

OK, if the big problems are Food, Energy and Water, isn't energy really a distant third? True, space solar power could reduce our production of greenhouse gases. And it could raise the standard of living for people who have limited access to energy today. But will this really make a difference when millions are at risk of starvation?

I think the answer lies a mantra, given to me by my friend Richard McPherson: "FOOD, ENERGY AND WATER ARE ACTUALLY ONE THING."

Energy is required at every step of modern food systems:

• cultivation
• harvesting
• irrigation
• processing
• transportation
• storage
• distribution

And how does energy relate to water? Here's the bottom line from a study of the water-energy relationship in California: "[In California] water-related energy use consumes 19 percent of the state’s electricity, 30 percent of its natural gas, and 88 billion gallons of diesel fuel every year – and this demand is growing."

Repeat after me: "Food, energy and water are actually one thing."

Bringing energy down from space--and it has to be affordable--really could mitigate our resource challenges on Earth. If people succeed in mining asteroids, they will develop key technologies--particularly space robotics--that we'll need for for building affordable space solar power stations.