Survive- The Economic Collapse

by Piero San Giorgio

  Each year, space must be found for storing or, in the best cases, sifting and recycling these millions of tons of waste. In the worst cases, waste is incinerated, producing a little heat and a lot of pollution. Often, waste is shipped off on cargo ships to poor countries, where it is warehoused in a slipshod manner or recycled under horrible working conditions, especially when garbage contains electronic devices or scrap-iron. In these poor countries, waste is allowed to accumulate in the very streets, or piled up on the edge of cities, untreated. This creates toxic and unhealthy zones, which become the residential quarters for the poorest of the poor.

  Sometimes, these countries even serve as illegal dumping grounds for the worst toxic waste of industries the world over. This traffic, conducted by crime syndicates, amounts to slow-motion ecological bombs, since no one knows exactly where the toxic matter gets dumped. No one knows what the effect of such pollution will be. A striking example is the Somali coast, where during the ‘90s and 2000s, the Neapolitan mafia (the Camorra), which specializes in the treatment of highly toxic products (acids, ammonia, etc.), profited from the local anarchy and absence of government by dumping whole shiploads of the stuff into the sea. It is hardly surprising that the local fishermen, soon finding themselves with a sea empty of fish, had to adapt by taking up piracy!

  This is not an exception. It is an example of deferred consequences. We have been massively polluting our ecosystem for a long time: mineral extraction has devastating effects, chemical pollution is terrible for our land, especially agricultural land. The worst poisons are petroleum derivatives (pesticides, plastics, harmful chemical products) or substances resulting from petroleum or carbon combustion (nitrogen oxides, etc.). We forget that this has consequences; and when someone near us gets cancer, we blame fate or regret the inability of medical science to treat it. We consider normal a way of life that is sick, highly aberrant, and cannot last. We will pay dearly for this.

  The World Health Organization has examined mortality tied to the presence of chemical substances in the environment. The results were that in 2004 chemical pollution caused 4.9 million deaths (8.3 percent of the total mortality). By comparison, the impact of chemical substances is greater than that of cancer, which represents 5.1 percent of that year’s total loss of life. 54 percent of the damage done by chemical substance has affected children under 15. Seventy percent of illnesses are due to the association of multiple atmospheric pollutants. This study is limited to “the known impact of a limited number of chemical substances; the unknown effects may be considerable.”

  The following graph shows the strong recent growth (measured in ppm—parts per million in the atmosphere) of emissions of certain greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane gas (CH4). Note that these curves all happen to be exponential and correspond perfectly to the population growth we saw above.

  The pollution and the emission of these gases caused by our way of life are often cited as the cause of global warming. If there is near-unanimity among scientists concerning the measurable and undeniable fact that we are going through a period of climate change rather than a true warming, the causes are still up for debate. Whether due to human activity (emission of greenhouse gases, methane, carbon dioxide, etc.) or to long cycles of solar activity, or to other still unknown causes (cosmic radiation, etc.), the changes are taking place. They are increasingly measurable, perceptible, and strong. We have no idea what is going to happen climatically in 10, 20, or 50 years. All the specialists agree that temperature and climate disturbances will have violent and unexpected effects that are difficult to predict. Since this will coincide with the period of falling oil production, we risk being greatly at a disadvantage in facing this series of crises.

  Beyond impressive momentary events like a bad hurricane season, drought, or flash flooding, the long-term changes are above all to be feared. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts a significant rise in sea levels in the course of the coming century.

  What effects will these changes have on the economy?

  Above all, the effect on agricultural production must be feared. Farmers are only able to adjust to slow climate changes, by adapting the seeds and techniques they employ. But if the changes occur in a sudden and unforeseeable manner, it will be difficult to adapt from year to year, from one harvest to the next. Steven Solomon, author of the book Water: The Epic Struggle for Wealth, Power and Civilization, describes the dramatic example of Pakistan:

  Consider what will happen in water-distressed, nuclear-armed, terrorist-besieged, overpopulated, heavily irrigation-dependent and already politically unstable Pakistan when its single water lifeline, the Indus river, loses a third of its flow from the disappearance of its glacial water source.

  A further warming, whose effects can be seen already, is going to allow parasites and insects to expand to new latitudes, which will also increase the number of persons exposed to diseases born by tropical mosquitoes (dengue, malaria). This will have major effects on harvests and probably cause sanitation crises. If sea levels rise due to melting ice, it will cause serious problems for the 15 percent of the world’s population which lives along the coasts at less than one meter above current sea level. Mass migrations and climatic refugees could have a large destabilizing effect, especially in Bangladesh, India, Egypt, and other countries with densely populated coastal regions.

  The most important economic effect will be felt on port infrastructure that cannot be protected by dams or moved. There is a risk that the loss of ports will strike a terrible blow against world trade. They will either have to be moved or new ones constructed. The cost will be enormous. We risk losing some of our most productive assets in the middle of a major crisis. Rising sea levels may also contaminate aquifers close to the coast with salt, rendering them useless for agriculture. This will accentuate the fresh-water shortage. Finally, and most terrifying, if global temperatures rise more than six degrees Celsius, this could set off a chain reaction, releasing methane now imprisoned by the arctic permafrost into the atmosphere. If this happens, the massive increase in this greenhouse gas will cause colossal climate changes. It is imaginable that changes in the North Atlantic currents will lead to a strong cooling, even the beginning of a new ice age. We cannot know. But when we know that four of the five known mass extinction events were caused or intensified by sudden changes of climate, we can surely say that it is neither intelligent nor prudent to play sorcerer’s apprentice.

  Even without climate change, modern agriculture seems already to be at a breaking point.

  Let’s start with water: 97.5 percent of the water in the world is seawater, i.e. saltwater, and therefore unsuited to either consumption or agriculture. Out of the remaining 2.5 percent of water remaining (fresh water), 68.9 percent is in the form of ice, 30.8 percent in subterranean aquifers, and only 0.3 percent is found in rainwater, lakes, and rivers.

  A normal human being consumes four liters of water per day in one form or another, in beverages or food. Now, to produce our food, 2,000 liters per person, 500 times as much, are necessary! This explains why 70 percent of fresh water is used for irrigation, 20 percent for industry, and only 10 percent for personal consumption (drinking, cleaning, and hygiene).

  The demand for water is increasing exponentially since it follows the progress of population. The more people, the more food they need, and the more water this requires. All signs indicate that we have already reached the limit: irrigation is so intensive that more and more rivers are no longer flowing all the way to their mouths. This is the case with the Colorado River in the U.S. and the Yellow River in China.

  The water in subterranean aquifers, “fossil water,” which takes centuries to form and become purified, is lost as soon as it has been used. These aquifers are being pumped well beyond their capacity to renew themselves; they soon will no longer be able to bring water to the populations dependent upon them. Water is a limited resource and is not divided equitably. While abundant in
certain parts of the world, one third of the population lives in areas with a water shortage. This is going to get worse. Most of the 21 million wells in India are on the point of running dry; in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Southwest United States, Spain, North Africa, and the Sahara, the aquifers have already dried up. Ever more water must be pumped from ever deeper down until it disappears entirely, and it is no longer possible to continue the cultivation of these regions. This will have an impact on food production. It is estimated that 15-35 percent of world agriculture is already on the edge of a chronic shortage of fresh water for irrigation. What will these millions of peasants do? What will the millions of people without food do? Will they wait patiently for the aid agencies, revolt, or emigrate?

  Of course, sea water can be desalinated, if you invest a lot of energy (i.e., petroleum) and if you can pay for the technical installation. One hopeful note is the relative success of initiatives for bringing drinking water to the Third World by developing better hygienic conditions that do not pollute water sources. But to continue down that path, 100 billion dollars must be found every year, while the annual budget of existing programs is only 4.5 billion. The poor peasant carries no weight in comparison to Wall Street!

  Water will be a limiting factor for demographic and economic growth in the next few years. The programmed exhaustion of fossil energy has already led to oil wars. We can expect water wars, especially between India, Bangladesh, China, and Pakistan; between China, Vietnam, Laos, and Myanmar; between Turkey, Iraq, and Syria; between Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Uganda; between Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine; between Guinea, Mali, Niger, Benin, and Nigeria, etc.

  Expert opinion agrees with that of the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), which writes in one of its recent reports:

  [J]ust satisfying the expected food and feed demand will require a substantial increase of global food production of 70 percent by 2050, involving an additional quantity of nearly 1 billion tons of cereals and 200 million tons of meat. . . . Much of the natural resource base already in use worldwide shows worrying signs of degradation. According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 15 out of 24 ecosystem services examined are already being degraded or used unsustainably. These include capture fisheries and water supply.

  The last decades have witnessed dramatic improvements in productivity on the world’s mega-farms: irrigation, fertilizers, mechanization, economies of scale, and genetically designed seeds have all increased yields. But how can agricultural output be increased another 70 percent, when practically all cultivable land is already under cultivation, when productivity is running up against the law of diminishing returns, and we are at risk of no longer having the cheap oil needed for fertilizers, irrigation, pesticides, and mechanization? Logically, there must be a limit to the amount of productive land on the earth’s surface, the remainder being too hot, too cold, or too dry. It will require energy and considerable effort to make land usable when it is naturally ill-adapted to agriculture.

  Over the course of this last century, the number of persons devoted to agriculture has fallen significantly, and agriculture itself has been reorganized on an unprecedented scale. We have gone from an age when the farmer knew all the tools and the smallest details of his business to a world in which the farmer is a manager, an engineer, a trader. The sophistication and technology are impressive. From that point of view, the system of industrial agriculture in the U.S. is a success story: a mechanization and industrialization of food production that is able to produce cereals, vegetables, and animals, all more or less genetically modified, in order to furnish the population with massive amounts of food with a high fat and protein content, massive quantities of salt, sugar, and mysterious chemical products—not to speak of aberrations such as giving cattle flour made from animal carcasses. . . . This industry, these food factories, are only possible thanks to oil (mainly in the form of diesel for agricultural machines and transportation) and natural gas (for producing fertilizer).

  Modern industrial agriculture can nourish more people than any other previous system, and it can do so with a tiny number of farmers. Output per acre is much higher than at any point in history. Unfortunately, these gains in productivity also have a hidden cost. Soil is getting poorer, and its nutritive components are disappearing. A handful of healthy soil contains billions of bacteria, mushrooms, protozoa, nematodes, as well as earthworms, arthropods, and many other useful little animals. Intensive agriculture eliminates all that and rapidly makes the soil sterile.

  Culture appears in the word “agriculture” for a good reason. This culture, or cultivation of the earth—I would even say, this love of the earth—is made up of knowledge, competence, tricks, secrets, work methods acquired over centuries and transmitted with care—and, indeed, love—to the next generation, from father to son, from mother to daughter.

  In less than a century, blinded by the ease fossil energy has brought us, we have thrown all that knowledge away. We have transformed farms into automated factories. Agriculture has gone from family and community management to an industrial and global enterprise.

  In this industry, we need 16 calories to produce a calorie’s worth of cereals, 70 calories to produce a calorie’s worth of meat. Roughly two pounds of cereal are needed to produce a pound of fish or poultry; four pounds of cereal, for a pound of pork; seven, for a pound of beef. This costs a lot in terms of agricultural surface area. Not to speak of the horrible conditions, in most cases, of production and slaughter in what must be called meat factories—factories in which one can observe behavior which would have been inconceivable in the time of our grandparents. Animals are treated with unheard-of cruelty—and done so on a massive scale: in the United States alone, more than 9 billion animals are killed every year. Besides the ethical question, there is that of the quality of the food thus produced—not to mention the hundreds of millions of gallons of excrement (saturated with growth hormones, antibiotics, and chemical products) we don’t know what to do with, and which ends up seeping into underground aquifers and waterways. The expression “eat shit” is becoming a reality.

  This kind of industrial agriculture—for which it would be better to be a trained manager from a business school than a farmer—is at the moment highly productive. In one century, through what has been called the Green Revolution, yield per acre has gone up 250 percent! This magnificent increase has been due to several factors: above all to oil and the mechanization of agriculture, which allow vast surfaces to be cultivated efficiently with few work hands. Oil is also necessary for pumping water and the regular massive irrigation of the fields; and in the chemical industry, it helps in the creation of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, etc. Other factors that come into play include the selection and use of more productive seeds, hybrids among them, and the massive use of fertilizer, which has gone from 14 million tons in 1950 to 141 million tons in 2000.

  It’s worth understanding how fertilizers are made. The three key elements for plant growth are nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Artificial nitrogen found in fertilizer is produced with natural gas, which supplies the energy for converting atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia, a form of nitrogen that plants can absorb. This conversion is energy-intensive: to make a pound of ammonia, the equivalent of a pound of oil (in the form of natural gas) is necessary. The price of artificial nitrogen, and thus fertilizer, is going up. As for phosphorus, which is found in nature mainly in the form of phosphates, the situation is more alarming: mines are yielding ever less; reserves will be exhausted in 30 or 40 years. Potassium is abundant, but obtained by the electrolysis of potassium hydroxide, a process which requires electricity, i.e., energy. These fertilizers are used to compensate for the impoverishment and sterility of soils, worn out by intensive monoculture. In fact, five centimeters of topsoil require hundreds of years to reach an optimal level of nutrients, but can be destroyed in a few years of intensive agriculture. Erosion is especially intense in monoculture, where the soil can no longe
r be described as healthy ground (i.e., a mixture of vegetable matter and interlocking roots that can retain their structure in the face of heavy rain). These fertilizers are going to pass, by the effect of rain and the elimination of agricultural waste, into our waterways and finally into the oceans. Too strong a concentration of nitrogen and phosphates in the ocean will create dead zones, nearly devoid of marine life due to the rapid growth and deadly expansion of algae which feed upon these elements.

  Since 1985, world agricultural production per inhabitant has only gone down. If industrial agriculture is extremely efficient, it has also become extremely fragile. Worse, since we are no longer aware of it, the products of industrial agriculture have also lost their nutritive value: between 1938 and 1990, the protein content of wheat and barley has sunk 30-50 percent, and 22-39 percent of the mineral content has been lost. Between 1920 and 2001, the concentration of protein, oils, and amino acids in maize has diminished by 25 percent.

  Desertification is another process that has accelerated because of human activity. Often it is a matter of overgrazing on land with few plants. When the wind blows over these stripped lands, the thin layer of productive soil is carried off, and only arid soil remains, unable to hold rainfall, which makes the situation ever worse. Desert extends over these lands very quickly, making them sterile. Desertification is a problem for China, where the Gobi desert is now no more than 150 miles from Beijing. The problem is enormous on the African continent. In Nigeria, more than 1,350 square miles of land are lost in this way every year.

  If a billion people are already suffering from malnutrition and chronic under-nourishment today, what would it be like tomorrow with a few billion more inhabitants? We are facing a predicament in which considerable efforts must be made to feed the world’s population—and yet these efforts will further imperil an already fragile situation. The more time passes, the worse things get, and we risk seeing on a global scale phenomena that have hitherto been isolated to single countries. In Haiti, citizens can’t feed themselves due to the exhaustion of their soil through decades of mismanagement; Rwanda experienced mass slaughters, which were motivated in part by the shortage of agricultural land in relation to the burgeoning population.