Peak Phosphosus: between (another) rock and a hard place

Part 2 on Peak Phosphorus. (Again, the North African element makes this all the more pertinent than it was when I wrote this piece, due to the uprisings going on in that part of the world. Appears here exclusively.

For part one see here

Farming supplies of phosphorus come mostly from one part of the world - Morocco. They are also finite. A new Soil Association report suggests a peak in availability by 2033, as well as significant environmental concerns with current use in agriculture.

How could and should farming adapt to the finite nature of its inputs, in particular phosphorus? According to the Soil Association, there are three distinct action areas.

The first is changing how we farm. They point out that �different farming systems vary enormously in their reliance on mined phosphate. Organic farms are more resilient to the coming phosphorus rock �shock�, as it can only be used as a supplement to nutrient recycling (including crop rotations, green manures, and composting), and not as a replacement.�

They continue: �Organic crops generally have a lower fertiliser requirement than non-organic crops, with a greater capacity to scavenge for nutrients through denser and deeper root systems.�

They also suggest the need for a change in consumption patterns: �Eating less meat can reduce the demand for mined phosphate. This is because vegetable-based production is more efficient in its use of phosphorus than livestock production.�

However not all meat is the same: �Meat from livestock grazed on grassland that has not been fertilised with artificial fertilisers, will perform much better than meat from livestock grazed on fields that have been, or livestock fed on grain grown using artificial fertilisers.�

The third is novel but in terms of global nutrient cycles something of an unpalatable inevitability. Its changing how we deal with human excreta. The report recommends �a radical change in the way we treat human ex[c]reta and the need to abandon our current �flush-and-forget� toilet systems in favour of Ecological Sanitation.

�The report also calls for a change to EU organic regulations to allow the use of human sewage � rich in �natural� phosphate - on agricultural land to ensure phosphate levels are maintained. Globally only 10% of human waste is returned to agricultural soils. Urine alone contains more than 50% of the phosphorus excreted by humans.�

The use of these �Biosolids� (treated municipal/human sewage sludge) is already allowed in conventional agriculture.

I spoke to the report author Isobel Tomlinson (Soil Association) to explore these issues further.

Last one first: excreta. �in the longer term we recognise that there are problems with the current sanitation system: high water use, phosphorus water pollution, high energy-use as well as the continuing risk of contaminants - because industrial waste is added to the sewage system you get a risk from heavy metal contamination.�

Separating waste or, equally, nutrient, streams seems to be key: that's industrial from human, as mentioned, but also urine from solids:

�We think that we should move towards ecological sanitation which is a term that incorporates a range of different systems for solving these problems. We particularly mention urine-diverting systems as urine contains half of phosphorus excreted, is generally sterile and there are already examples of it being used in agriculture - for example Sweden. We would also like composting systems � the "humanure" approach - to be considered where appropriate.�

She also expands on the changing consumption and farming. Indeed, the two are connected, as what's produced is also consumed � either by animals or people.

According to Tomilson, along with changing production over to organic methods, what's needed is �An overall cut in dairy consumption, and dairy products to be sourced from grass-fed cows from extensive farming systems; More cereals and root crops and more seasonal fruit and vegetables; Less meat overall, but more grass-fed beef and lamb and less energy intensive, grain-fed and industrially-reared chickens and pigs.�

Ireland is well positioned to produce meat and milk extensively. We may, however, have to convince others to produce less and for us to be �The Producers� - i.e. the main suppliers for many parts of the world due to our extensive grazing. We may however, also have to make our grazing even more low input and grass-based - and do so not just for for phosphorus supply, but for many other environmental reasons too.

the Soil Association report is here

Peak Phosphorus: Between a Rock and a Hard Place

This EXCLUSIVE feature (with part 2 next time) deals with phosphorus availability to farming. While the primary thing that's going on in North Africa right now is a fight for democracy, in the context of this article, North Africa takes on a new significance...Especially Morocco .

Read on to see why....

(pic: phosphorus mining, from tree hugger)

Sometimes, it seems, its not that it rains but it pours. Just as the economy nosedives, a whole range of agri-food peaks seem to be emerging in tandem.

There's an impending peak in global oil availability. There is the peak of 350 parts per million in atmospheric carbon, which we have passed but hope to drop back to. Without doing so, we are over what scientists consider to be the safe limit and may trigger runaway climate change.

And now, there's peak phosphorus.

Of the farmers' Holy Trinity of N, P and K in the stalwart bag of 10-10-20, its the K that's most at risk.

While mined potassium will be available for centuries, and while nitrogen can be fixed from the air, mined phosphorus may only have decades left. What's more, a peak in supply may, according to a new report issued by the UK's Soil Association, come as soon as 2033.

This report, �A rock and a hard place: Peak phosphorus and the threat to our food security� points out that once we come close to and reach this peak, prices will inevitably start to rise.

Crucially, agriculture will have to adapt to this or face the possibility of failing to feed even more than the 8-900 million it currently fails to feed.

What has been called by the Scientific American �a geostrategic time bomb� colours the situation significantly: there are just three main global sources of phosphorus - the US, China and Morocco/Western Sahara.

According to the Soil Association report, �In 2009, 158 million metric tonnes of phosphate

rock was mined worldwide. 67% of this resource was mined in just three countries - China (35%), the USA (17%) and Morocco and Western Sahara (15%). China has now restricted, and the USA has stopped, exports of phosphate�.

So that basically leaves the rest of the world depending on Morocco.

The report claims that phosphate availability �is missing from the global policy agenda - we are completely unprepared to deal with the shortages in phosphorus inputs, the drop in production and the hike in food prices that will follow. Without fertilisation from phosphorus it has been estimated that wheat yields could more then halve in coming decades, falling from nine tonnes a hectare to four tonnes a hectare.�

Research released in 2008 by the pan-European QLIF (Quality Low Input Food) project reported found even more stark figures. It suggested that without phosphorus, non-organic wheat yields could fall from an average of eight to just 2.5 tonnes per hectare, while organic yields (of six tonnes per hectare) would also decline, though not as starkly. This is because organic farming encourages a wider number of sources of phosphate input.

According to Professor Carlo Leifert, one of the scientists at the University of Newcastle working on the project, �If you look at textbooks from 30 years ago, they estimate that we had about 500 years of phosphorus left. Now we are using about 125 million tonnes each year. Even optimists � and we are optimists � estimate that there is no more than about 60 years of phosphorus left now. And you can�t substitute one mineral fertiliser with another.�

The 2010 Soil Association report points out that �the current price of phosphate rock is approximately twice that of 2006. When demand for phosphate fertiliser outstripped supply in 2007/08, the price of rock phosphate rose 800%.�

It continues �A radical rethink of how we farm, what we eat and how we deal with human excreta, so that adequate phosphorus levels can be maintained without reliance on mined phosphate, is crucial for ensuring our future food supplies.�

IEA and oil availability part 2: how prepared is Ireland for less oil?

According to Dr Brian Motherway, Head of Strategy in Sustainable Energy Ireland �the IEA�s own estimates have dropped considerably in recent years:...no-one disagrees with the underlying principle that it is only a matter of time before oil becomes much more expensive and much less available�.

As regards Ireland's preparedness for this reality, �Ireland needs to act on this now. We are heavily dependent on imports of oil and gas, and this is not sustainable. Ireland is making progress in reducing fossil fuel dependence in electricity in particular�. Transport however, is still �almost entirely dependent on imported oil�.

He continues �we need action on all fronts to reduce our vulnerability. This includes actions to reduce our energy use by increasing efficiency, and also action to increase our use of indigenous, renewable resources.�

When queried on specific initiatives, a representative of the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources pointed out that �in 2008, over 12% of our electricity came from renewable energy sources�, and that �we have increased our targets to 40% by 2020.� Renewables will �provide 12% of the power in the heating sector by 2020�.

He goes on �Ireland also has a target of 10% of all vehicles in the transport fleet in Ireland to be powered by electricity by 2020�, which includes an arrangement with Renault-Nissan to ensure that �Ireland will be one of the first countries in the world to be supplied with both Renault and Nissan electric cars.�

Recent changes to the motor tax regime have also resulted in a shift towards more energy efficient private vehicle preferences.

Specifically in relation to oil supply shocks, �systems are in place to deal with shorter term supply disruptions or emergency scenarios in relation to oil, gas or electricity supply.

�The National Oil Reserves Agency (NORA) is responsible for ensuring that Ireland has 90 days of oil supplies in reserve for use in the event of an international or national supply disruption. A stakeholder task force has also been established �charged with assessing the robustness of existing energy emergency procedures�.

However this all seems piecemeal, if the concerns voiced by Irish-based Members of FEASTA, the Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability, are to be believed.

According to Richard Douthwaite, �FEASTA and others have been saying that we're on the point of oil peak for some time�. Douthwaite suggests that oil production peaked in July of last year, and has been dropping since. It is now going to be �its going to be virtually impossible to ramp up production�.

This means that �growth globally will simply not happen�. In this context, the massive NAMA-related debts Ireland has just taken on will be impossible to service, as these debts are higher than they would otherwise be due to their projected market value in the future.

The lack of energy availability will mean that �energy prices will go very high and purchasing power will leave economy, just when we need to find money to pay interest on the debts we've undertaken.�

David Korowicz, also of FEASTA, continues �much of the infrastructure we take for granted such as energy systems, supply-chains, IT and communication systems, sewage and water provision are very vulnerable�. He noted that �even in the most advanced countries we could be on the edge of a serious food crisis�.

So is the situation hopeless, for the planet and for Ireland?

Even Korowicz manages a note of optimism: �there is much we can do to manage the risks, and much we can do that is inspiring and hopeful. In seeing this as a societal issue, requiring an urgent and collective effort, we can find the common purpose that in recent times has been so lacking�.

(Note: FEASTA are involved in this, which is about coping mechanisms)

International Energy Agency and oil: How much is left, and what are the alternatives, part 1

The International Energy Agency (IEA) report, issued on Tuesday, makes for grim reading. The report is used by governments all over the world to set energy policy.

Business as usual would put the planet on track for a 6 degree rise in global temperatures.

The report demonstrates that containing climate change is possible but will require �a profound transformation of the energy sector.�

Keeping Co2 levels in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million (ppm), which many experts feel will only give the planet a 50-50 chance of avoiding runaway climate change, will require �a profound transformation of the energy sector� according to the IEA.

�To achieve this scenario, fossil-fuel demand would need to peak by 2020 and energy-related carbon dioxide emissions to fall to 26.4 gigatonnes (Gt) in 2030 from 28.8 Gt in 2007� according to the IEA

Two of the main challenges include increased demand from China and India, as well as lack of investment in renewables and efficiencies due to the downturn.

Current oil producers also face losses of many trillions of dollars if global agreement can be reached on aiming for a limit of 450 ppm.

The small rises in supplies of "non-conventional oil", such as the tar sands of Canada, involve extreme climate polluting extraction methods.

Even nuclear, often lauded as carbon neutral, is not. The drilling, blasting, excavating, separating and transporting of uranium is not taken into account by western governments in their own figures.

It has been reported that the Namibian government plans to build a coal fired power plant to provide electricity for its uranium mines, due to increased UK demand. This could produce more than 10 million tonnes of Co2 a year, while also draining resources such as water and producing huge mountains of nuclear waste, waste which remains problematic far into the future.

Coping with nuclear waste for millennia, in a world with no fossil fuels, will be interesting to say the least.

Alarming and all as it was, some of the IEA's thunder was stolen by a whistleblower, as reported in the Guardian on Monday.

This person, described as a senior official with the IEA, claimed that the IEA has been exaggerating the amount of oil left due to US pressure. This then prompted the IEA to publish more details on the figures.

However even the figures themselves are worrying. Fields yet to be developed and even yet to be found make the situation look better than it otherwise is.

What are the implications for Ireland? How ready is Ireland for a oil shortage? See next posting.

Science, farming and fossil fuels: An organic crop researcher talks about the science of farming

Dr. Charles Merfield, or �Merf� as the approachable New Zealander prefers to be called, is making waves across the Irish agricultural landscape at the moment. Merf works for Teagasc (Irish state's agri-advisory and research organisation) as an organic crop researcher, and is based in Johnstown Castle, Wexford, Ireland. Merf's own site, which carries info on his research, letters published in the farming press etc is here

Oliver Moore: First thing first Merf, tell me a little bit about yourself and your background - hw did a New Zealander end up as a researcher in Ireland?

Merf: My partner is a soil microbiologist and nitrogen specialist and was working for Teagasc in 2006 - I heard about the job when I came to visit her. It�s also the only job in organic cropping research I found in the EU - something I find rather odd considering the general enthusiasm for organics at the moment, so I am very glad I got the position.

Oliver Moore: Do you have any practical experience in farming?

My background is in commercial horticulture - I studied at Writtle College in the UK. I then had jobs managing organic horticultural farms in the UK and New Zealand. This has given me a really solid grounding in real farming and business - which I feel is an invaluable asset now I am mostly on the research side of the fence. I only have to think back to standing in a cold wet field harvesting vegetables to remind myself of farmer�s priorities. I find agricultural scientists that have come from purely academic backgrounds without farm experience are missing something, and ag science is poorer as a result.

Oliver Moore: Your perspective on where agriculture is going has been attracting a lot of attention recently, in both the farming press and at various agricultural events. Firstly, can you give me a brief historical perspective.

Merf: Since the beginning of agriculture until the enlightenment and the industrial revolution, agriculture has been firmly embedded in the carrying capacity of the local ecosystem in which it operated. Human history in that time is riddled with endless examples of human societies that exceeded the ecological carrying capacity of the land, thereby destroying it and themselves. This is a key theme in Tim Flannery�s �The Future Eaters�. Indeed it is difficult to think of any large civilisation that has not destroyed its resource base and therefore itself. One exception held up in organic circles are the ancient Chinese who farmed the same lands for millennia without loss of fertility or productivity, due to the constant recycling of all nutrients from animal, including human, manures back to the land.

For me there are two key changes that fundamentally altered this situation - science and fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are not just fuel but are the �feed stock� for most of the materials on which our modern lives depend. Anything you see around you that you cannot clearly see is made from biological material, for example a solid wood table, is almost certainly made �from� fossil fuel, mainly oil. Unfortunately practically everything in the modern world is made �with� oil or other fossil energy, even if it is of biological origin and not made �from� oil. In other words, the energy from fossil fuel was used in its manufacture. Fossil fuel therefore provides nearly all of the energy and �feed stock� for the modem world, materials that were previously provided almost exclusively by agriculture. I therefore think the term �fossil land� is a far more accurate and useful term than fossil fuel.

Oliver Moore: So what�s the problem with fossil fuel or fossil land dependence then?

Merf: Peak oil is the problem. Fossil fuels having been in common use for about 300 years, nearly eight generations. Fossil fuels are so �normal� that most people cannot, or maybe until the last couple of years, could not conceive that they would not last for ever. However, its very basic maths that if you have a finite resource and progressively use it up then at some stage you will of used half of it up, that is, peak supply, at some time use all of it up, and at some point in-between its scarcity will drive its cost so high it will in effect preclude its use for most purposes. Once it is gone, it is gone forever - at least in geological time scales.

From my perspective science and fossil land make an unholy alliance. Without fossil fuels, science and technology would have been forced to work within the ecological carrying capacity of the land, and when they tried to exceed it they would be been utterly rebuffed. The carrying capacity of land is no different to the productivity of a cow, say. You can�t keep milking a cow without feeding it and expect to get milk forever, but that is often the belief about ecosystems: you can�t milk an ecosystem forever without feeding it, i.e., replacing that which you remove from it, and expect it to last forever. Had there not been fossil fuel and society had hit the ecological wall, after a few crashes �science� should have figured out what was going on and figured out how to stay within the ecological carrying capacity.

However, modernity has effectively ignored the carrying capacity of its ecosystems by consuming fossil land, in the form of oil and coal. These replaced the nutrients and energy that had previously been produced by agriculture. I hope the term �consuming fossil land� or just �consuming land� gives some insight into how insane this is. No farmer in his right mind would allow the destruction of part of his or her fields with each harvest, but this is what we are in effect doing when we consume fossil fuels, that is, fossil land. Both land and fossil fuels are finite resources and if we destroy them it takes a very long time, millennia for soil, tens of millions of year for fossil fuels, to replace them.

We have therefore used fossil land to both boost our current agricultural land area, increasing its productivity while also directly using fossil land to feed, clothe and house ourselves. Indeed, there has been so much fossil land available we have used it to have one �huge consumerist party� that far exceeds what our agricultural land would of supported on its own.

Oliver Moore: Give me a specific example, Merf

Merf: A key example using fossil land to directly boost the effective agricultural land area is nitrogen fertilisers. These are made from and with the natural gas methane, mostly as the feed sock / raw material but about 10% or so as the energy source to drive the Haber�Bosch process. By applying N fertilisers we can increase crop yield, which in the case of pasture, means we can increase stocking density. However, this is an illusion. If a farm had to produce all of the methane and energy required to produce the nitrogen fertiliser it uses then its stocking rate would be far lower, due to the land area needed. I have yet to see an analysis of this but I bet that it would be possible to get a far higher stocking rate using legumes to produce the nitrogen than the Haber�Bosch process using farm produced methane and energy.

Oliver Moore: What does this kind of analysis mean for society�s ability to feed itself?

Merf: We need ten times the amount of agricultural land we have in Europe to supply our current energy needs. On top of this about 15% of oil is used as �feed stock� to make plastic and all the other materials we have substituted for biological materials such as wool, cotton, wood and so on. So at a rough estimate we may need 15 times our existing agricultural land area to meet our current energy and synthetic material consumption, oh and one existing land area to produce our food, plus half as much again if it�s to be done within ecological constraints. Even if the figures I use are out by a power of ten we are still in serious trouble.

Oliver Moore: In the short term, what will this mean for agriculture in Ireland?

There will come a point when rotations will have to come back into mainstream farming, as clover will prove to be a cheaper source of nitrogen that the current oil-based sources.

Poultry, as a non-ruminant, needs quite a considerable quantity of grain to perform. Free-range poultry can be fed on some grass, but not completely on grass. The same goes for pigs. Now, they can be fed on various fodder crops, but you won�t get the growth rates.

In organics, the two organic meat products that cost far higher for the consumer are pigs and poultry, because organic producers can�t substitute pasture in for grain. Organic beef has the lowest price premium, especially in places like Ireland where the production differences are small.

The pig and poultry producers just don�t have the same sorts of pasture options. Their animals are indoors all the time and fed highly concentrated, high energy rations. But the whole system is based on cheep feed.

The dairy guys can look at places like New Zealand, which has similarities to Ireland, and see how to maximise the use of grass. The obvious easy one is to start to introduce clover. Clover increases quality, digestibility, protein, you get free nitrogen fixation - it�s a puzzle as to why more non-organic farmers aren�t doing it!

oil and Ireland's coping strategies: that $100 moment

Here's an article I wrote for the 'eye of the storm' op ed in the examiner. I haven't had an op ed before, so was v pleased to write it. It was all very frantic - I had a particular hour to get the article in by, which is unusual for me. And that hour was 2pm the day before the Saturday edition of the paper. It was also slightly outside of my normal remit, but I though I could perhaps start doing some news features for a change.

Don't worry foodies, there's plenty on food in it! I do regret not including the following things, however, so I'm glad to be able to include them now:

best place for info on peak oil is probably: this place! http://www.feasta.org/

John Gormley also obviously introduced the VRT changes and the lightbulb changes
and decoupling in Irish Agriculture has reduced the emissions from agriculture.

So here is the article:

It had to happen. With oil hitting and hovering around $100 dollars the whole world is now talking and thinking about oil. So how dependent are we on it, how much is there really left and what are we doing to adapting to a world with less oil?

It is thought that we are more efficient and less dependent on oil than we were in the bad old days of the 1970s. There are a number of problems with this thesis. Firstly, there is the fact that we are a far more globalised economy than we were back then. Since then, national economies have been deregulated and trade liberalised, so that now, many products are made up from a multitude of interconnected and intercontinental components. And plastic has, of course gone forth and multiplied.

Laptops, disposable containers, toys, toothbrushes, cameras, the list of personalised products goes on. But then, the functioning of many aspects of the economy is dependent too: medicines, food production and transport, are all either quite literally fuelled by or dependent upon oil.

Take food: Fertilizer production and transportation is heavily oil dependent. Prices are rising � Nitrogen (made by oil at present) is up 50%, Phospate (also a finite resource) is up 67% - and the consumer is starting to experience this.

With globalisation has come global sourcing of foods and agri-food inputs; we in Ireland have a very weak food producing infrastructure, once we start to consider foods other than meat and milk. Even these depend on winter feeds which are heavy oil users, both in production and transport.

According to the junior minister with responsibility in the area, Trevor Sargent, there are less than a dozen large scale vegetable producers left in Ireland at present.

Just-in-time deliveries by road mean that supermarkets have jettisoned their storage spaces and instead opted for storing food in refrigerated trucks on the roads. Food processing is ever-increasing too � both involve more oil.

So, seeing as we are so dependent on it, how much oil is left then? That depends upon how you measure it. For example, optimists suggest that there are bound to be reserves. According to the US based Cambridge Energy Research Associates:

�Those who believe a peak is imminent tend to consider only proven remaining reserves of conventional oil, which they currently estimate at about 1.2 trillion barrels�this is a pessimistic estimate because it excludes the enormous contribution likely from probable and possible resources, those yet to be found.�

Then go on: �the global inventory is some 4.8 trillion barrels, of which about 1.08 trillion barrels have been produced, leaving 3.72 trillion conventional and unconventional barrels, an order of magnitude that will allow productive capacity to continue to expand well into this century.�

Pessimists suggest that these reserves, should they be found, will be too difficult and costly to extract. They suggest that this may already be the case for reserves in deep water, the artic, extra heavy, oil shale and enhanced recovery oils. The crux of the matter is whether all the known reserves can be found, processed and delivered to market in time. Proponents of the Peak Oil theory, such as Feasta, suggest that we are already at the peak oil point, where accessible reserves will be smaller than what�s been extracted. They suggest that we need to make plans urgently to deal with energy decent, or powerdown.

So what is Ireland doing about it? Oil consumption per capita has risen 50% over the last 15 years, while our dependence on imported oil and gas stands at 85%. According to an Amarach consulting report from 2006, services and manufacturing will mostly be affected indirectly by peak oil in the short term, whereas residential and agricultural sectors are more vulnerable. They suggest that our mitigation strategies are vital.

The new Energy Minister, Eamon Ryan has begun to put some mitigating factors into place: these include funding for renewables research, the smart electricity metering programme for houses which will be rolled out in April, and improved north south energy co-operation. A National Energy Efficiency Action Plan is being finalised at present, which according to the Minister, �will allow us to save �1.7 billion or 3 million tonnes of oil every year.�

Minister Ryan states that �We are also committed to making energy efficiency savings of 20% by 2020. The public sector will have to make energy savings of 33% by this date.�

Building energy efficiency standards have also been introduced for all new houses by Environment Minister John Gormley.

Some parts of Ireland have taken matters into their own hands, most notably Kinsale and north Tipperary, in particular the town of Cloughjordan.

In Kinsale, students from the 2 year permaculture course in the local college along with their then teacher, Rob Hopkins, designed an energy decent plan, which has received some funding from the local council. The plan goes through all the key aspects of socio-economic and cultural life in Kinsale, and produces a road map for how to reduce energy use.

�We didn�t think it was going to be that big a deal, but the plan has been downloaded over 5000 times around the world� according to Klaus Harvey, who sits on the Steering Committee of Transition Towns Kinsale. This plan has become an intergal part of what has become the known as the transition towns movement. For Kinsale, food, education, housing, economy and livelihoods, health, tourism, transport, waste, energy and marine resources are all examined and mapped out in energy decent terms.

In north Tipperary, very ambitious plans are afoot. A 130 house ecovillage is being constructed at present, adjacent to the local village of Cloughjordan. According to Duncan Martin, of the ecovillage�s energy, waste and water subcommittee, �The houses will be well insulated and designed to make best use of the sun's heat�. There is an ecological charter which sets out the standard which the house must meet.

He goes on: �all our space heating and hot water will come from renewable sources. Additional heating will be provided by a district heating system. This will circulate hot water to every house from a central array of solar panels, backed up by two wood-chip boilers. The woodchip will come from local forestry wastes, so we will be independent of imported fossil fuels�.

And it�s not just the ecovillage itself. �The ecovillage is a partner in a European project called SERVE - Sustainable Energy for the Rural Village Environment. This is providing over �2 million in funding for the area around Cloughjordan to improve energy efficiency in existing houses and expand the use of renewable energy. This will cover such additions as more insulation, double glazing, solar panels, wood pellet boilers and better central heating controls�.

In total, along with the ecovillage itself, 900 houses in north Tipperary villages will benefit from the SERVE project.

Is it all enough? In the final analysis that depends upon whether we resist or embrace change.

oily food and a conference you shouldn't fly to....

Hi everybody, and welcome to the new year.
The Soil Association's january conference is fast approaching, many interesting themes including in particular peak oil.....see here

Speaking of which FEASTA (the foundation for the economics of Sustainability) are highlighting the connections between animals and ozone depletion here.


it may seem like an obvious, 1980s ish argument, but suprizingly enough food isn't really coming into the peak oil and ozone depletion arguments in anything like as comprehensive a way as it should be - hense the aptness of the SA conf

For example, the Food Commission's most recent magazine points out the complete lack of food as a cause of global warming in the Stern report, despite what they claim is food's 25-30% contribution to said global warming.....