[Bioman]

Hi, there's a thread where people are trying to create a list of countries that produce both enough energy and food.

I am looking for a list of countries with enough land to produce both enough food and bio-energy to meet all food and energy needs of their own populations.

So far, the list looks like this (** = can produce twice the amount of food needed + all energy from biofuels / ****= can produce twice the amount of food needed + twice the amount of energy needed from biofuels):

Asia & Pacific
Brunei **
Cambodia
Indonesia **
Laos ****
Malaysia
Myanmar **
Papua New Guinea ****
Thailand

Europe
Poland
Ukraine

North America
Canada

North Asia
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Russian Federation ****
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan

Central & South America
Argentina
Bolivia
Brazil ****
Colombia ****
Ecuador **
French Guyana ****
Guyana **
Honduras
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay ****
Peru
Suriname
Uruguay ****
Venezuela ****

Africa
Angola ****
Benin
Burkina Faso
Cameroon **
Central African Republic ****
Congo D. R. ****
Congo Republic ****
Cote d'Ivoire **
Equatorial Guinea
Ethiopia
Gabon ****
Gambia
Ghana
Guinea
Guinea-Buissau
Liberia **
Madagascar
Mozambique ****
Namibia
Nigeria
Senegal
Sierra Leone **
Sudan
Tanzania **
Uganda **
Zambia ****
Zimbabwe

So there is a serious problem here, because both East Asia and India, the United States and most of Europe and the Middle East and North Africa can never become food and energy independent because they don't have enough land.

Maybe the countries who can supply twice as much food and bio-energy than they need, can export some of it to the regions that can't? Just an idea.

[waegari]

Europe
Poland
Ukraine.

I was wondering why you'd leave out a country like Latvia, which has a very small population and lots of as yet unused land? And what about its Baltic neighbours?

Other than that I wouldn't see too many other European candidates, absolutely.

[steam_cannon]

Hi, there's a thread where people are trying to create a list of countries that produce both enough energy and food.

I am looking for a list of countries with enough land to produce both enough food and bio-energy to meet all food and energy needs of their own populations.

So far, the list looks like this (** = can produce twice the amount of food needed + all energy from biofuels / ****= can produce twice the amount of food needed + twice the amount of energy needed from biofuels):


Europe
Poland
Ukraine

North America
Canada

So there is a serious problem here, because both East Asia and India, the United States and most of Europe and the Middle East and North Africa can never become food and energy independent because they don't have enough land.

Cool that Ukraine made your list, I love that country...

And many Ukrainians do a good job living life on a low energy budget. You see horse drawn carts bringing food into modern looking cities chalked full of public transportation and walk ways... But with food prices, Ukrainians already suffer from high foreign price bidding, great for farmers but very hard for anyone else in the economy. And if Ukraine closed their borders for food exports, I'm sure their natural gas imports would be cut or their country would be reorganized by force. Food exporters are very much in the same boat as oil exporters (the oil curse)...

So there is a serious problem here, because both East Asia and India, the United States and most of Europe and the Middle East and North Africa can never become food and energy independent because they don't have enough land.

They can all become fuel and food independent and they will, just not without suffering.

In the US climate change is going to cut down our available land horribly, but still land availability will have a lot to do with land use. If corn and soy become too costly to feed cows, we will stop wasting it that way (I hope). And biofuel costs will price out people before the US can even try to substitute their fuel needs with them. So the US will stop driving so much, like Ukraine. However the US situation will be more painful because it will not be voluntary or in a well planned manner (lacking a public transportation alternative).

Maybe the countries who can supply twice as much food and bio-energy than they need, can export some of it to the regions that can't? Just an idea.

This looks like the curse of oil... Some countries will choose to export their food at a high price, some will choose not to and be reorganized (invaded and regime changed). Basically it is like having a hoard of food and a big sign on your house saying (Loot Here)! If you're home is a castle (strong military), you will be a king. If you are a surf(small military) with lots of goods, expect taxes from the king...

My opinions aside, this study is great! Three cheers for Bioman!

Understanding resource distribution can be very profitable. If you look at food and water resources like oil. For example: GW Bush purchased 100,000 acres of Aquifer and Natural Gas fields in (Paraguay ****) on your list. Big money is going for dwindling resources. This is a nice summary of where big money will be going and could be predictive in judging where the next resource war will be.

[master_rb]

would this formula work USA - SUV's as an energy independent country? what i mean is if US has enough energy to support itself if it didn't waste it so much?

can anybody anser this, lets say we all swich to honda fit or VW TDI and save as much as possible, would the bussiness go as usual or it's still not enough, do we need to change the whole transportation from highways to railways to make it as an independant country? how far does US have to go to be indepenant country? i want a streight answer i know there will always be some bill gates driving a viper even after PO but let's just round it off

[steam_cannon]

A few more thoughts on climate change. If Canada and Siberia become the new centers of civilization due to catastrophic global warming, this would change how countries should be rated. Your list is great, very high level stuff. But I think a probability of surviving global warming might be a reasonable addition.

James Lovelock: We'll be lucky if 20% survive
http://peakoil.com/fortopic28941.html

“Much of the tropical land mass will become scrub and desert, and will no longer serve for regulation; this adds to the 40 per cent of the Earth's surface we have depleted to feed ourselves.”


Perhaps something like...

Future Sustainable Population
Canada 100%
Mexico 10%

Small world map
http://www.worldpress.org/images/maps/world_600w.jpg

Large world map
http://web.mit.edu/kenta/www/one/world-map.png

[xarkz]

I guess Iceland can make it so the list.

Almost 1,7 million tons of fish hunted last year.
Population is 300 thousand so most of it is exported,
so we are a huge net exporter of food.

Besides that there is an agricultural system, and most of the meat used is domestic(20 thousand tons produced). Corn and some vegetables is also produced. So most of the "basic" food is produced here.

fuel:
Not yet. But there is a lot of methane and hydrogen production capacity possible, but that will take time to be in a large amount.

Actually there might be some oil north of the country but we'll see about that.

[roccman]

If this is true...China seems to think America is just right for them to colonize.

http://en.epochtimes.com/tools/printer.asp?id=31055

Quote

To resolve the issue of America we must be able to transcend conventions and restrictions. In history, when a country defeated another country or occupied another country, it could not kill all the people in the conquered land, because back then you could not kill people effectively with sabers or long spears, or even with rifles or machine guns. Therefore, it was impossible to gain a stretch of land without keeping the people on that land. However, if we conquered America in this fashion, we would not be able to make many people migrate there.

Only by using special means to “clean up” America will we be able to lead the Chinese people there. This is the only choice left for us. This is not a matter of whether we are willing to do it or not. What kind of special means is there available for us to “clean up” America? Conventional weapons such as fighters, canons, missiles and battleships won’t do; neither will highly destructive weapons such as nuclear weapons. We are not as foolish as to want to perish together with America by using nuclear weapons, despite the fact that we have been exclaiming that we will have the Taiwan issue resolved at whatever cost. Only by using non-destructive weapons that can kill many people will we be able to reserve America for ourselves. There has been rapid development of modern biological technology, and new bio weapons have been invented one after another. Of course we have not been idle; in the past years we have seized the opportunity to master weapons of this kind. We are capable of achieving our purpose of “cleaning up” America all of a sudden. When Comrade Xiaoping was still with us, the Party Central Committee had the perspicacity to make the right decision not to develop aircraft carrier groups and focus instead on developing lethal weapons that can eliminate mass populations of the enemy country.

From a humanitarian perspective, we should issue a warning to the American people and persuade them to leave America and leave the land they have lived in to the Chinese people. Or at least they should leave half of the United States to be China’s colony, because America was first discovered by the Chinese. But would this work? If this strategy does not work, then there is only one choice left to us. That is, use decisive means to “clean up” America, and reserve America for our use in a moment. Our historical experience has proven that as long as we make it happen, nobody in the world can do anything about us. Furthermore, if the United States as the leader is gone, then other enemies have to surrender to us.

Biological weapons are unprecedented in their ruthlessness, but if the Americans do not die then the Chinese have to die. If the Chinese people are strapped to the present land, a total societal collapse is bound to take place. According to the computation of the author of Yellow Peril, more than half of the Chinese will die, and that figure would be more than 800 million people! Just after the liberation, our yellow land supported nearly 500 million people, while today the official figure of the population is more than 1.3 billion. This yellow land has reached the limit of its capacity. One day, who knows how soon it will come, the great collapse will occur any time and more than half of the population will have to go.

We must prepare ourselves for two scenarios. If our biological weapons succeed in the surprise attack [on the United States], the Chinese people will be able to keep their losses at a minimum in the fight against the United States. If, however, the attack fails and triggers a nuclear retaliation from the United States, China would perhaps suffer a catastrophe in which more than half of its population would perish. That is why we need to be ready with air defense systems for our big and medium-sized cities. Whatever the case may be, we can only move forward fearlessly for the sake of our Party and state and our nation’s future, regardless of the hardships we have to face and the sacrifices we have to make. The population, even if more than half dies, can be reproduced. But if the Party falls, everything is gone, and forever gone!

[Fredrik]

So there is a serious problem here, because both East Asia and India, the United States and most of Europe and the Middle East and North Africa can never become food and energy independent because they don't have enough land.

When I apply that to my own country... it boils down to how much energy a country actually needs. Of course, Finland could never both feed itself and grow enough biofuels to sustain a semblance of modern living standards. But with a well concentrated effort, it could produce enough food for its citizens, enough heat to warm their homes (wood probably won't run out anytime soon), and maybe 10-20% of today's electricity. All this would naturally require major changes in the country's economic infrastructure. But I'm pretty sure those changes will start during the next decade, in my country and everywhere else.

North Asia
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Russian Federation ****
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan

From what I know about Central Asian countries (the former Soviet republics ending in -stan), they do have relatively large land areas and small populations, but most of that land is desert or arid steppe, not suitable for agriculture (especially when PO takes its toll on modern agricultural devices). Until the last two centuries, the main livelihood in those countries was nomadic cattle herding. Even areas well irrigated now may get hit by droughts caused by GW; this could apply to several other nations.

Generally, I find your list interesting and informative. One just shouldn't forget an important negative factor for countries that can sustain themselves: stronger and hungrier neighbors.

[Wolfeman30]

I have an idea to the person who started this thread.

You should look at the problem backwards, and look at a countries total food and fuel capacity to determine how much population is sustainable, then add all that up to see how much of a dieoff will be necessary.

[Mircea]

I have an idea to the person who started this thread.

You should look at the problem backwards, and look at a countries total food and fuel capacity to determine how much population is sustainable, then add all that up to see how much of a dieoff will be necessary.

No "die-off" is necessary, as 100% of the population is sustainable. Your great-grandmother and grand-mother can explain it to you.

[Wolfeman30]

No "die-off" is necessary, as 100% of the population is sustainable. Your great-grandmother and grand-mother can explain it to you.

Huh? you've confused me. I was talking about AFTER fossil fuels have depleted.

Guess you've no clue about overshoot and collape, and have read nothing on the topic, then?

There MUST be a die off, because when fossil fuels deplete, there will no longer be enough food for everyone. This is a rather simple concept really. use of land currently dedicated to food to grow fuel will only make it worse.

We in america will gleefully let millions in other parts of the world starve so we can drive a new car to the grocery store for dinner.

Consider that for every 1 calorie of food you eat, 10 more calories of oil were consumed to get the food to you.

[Denny]

would this formula work USA - SUV's as an energy independent country? what i mean is if US has enough energy to support itself if it didn't waste it so much?

That is as great question. If the U.S. could drop its discretionary fuel consumption per capita to the level of say World War 2, would that be enough to be self-sufficient? I would have guessed yes to that.

But, it seems the stats say no. U.S. total oil use has grown from about 4.5 M bbl/day to 15 M bbl/day since WW2. But, most of that has been due to population growth, from about 130 million to 300 million. Also, bear in mind how prevalent coal use was in the war era. Space heating, railways, even many or most homes, relied on coal. Most of that has shifted to natural gas, but this too is threatened, its in the same petroleum "boat". So, it owuldk seem that if the USA adopeted the drastic consservation measures of WW2 it would offset the impact of losing one major supplying country only.

I found this graph of domestic production and imports:

[gg3]

First of all, that article quoting the alleged speech in China sets off my BS detector bigtime. Starting out with the "good news" that 80% of respondants to a survey "would shoot women, children, and prisoners" is a clever way to get peoples' attention, but doesn't wash. And I seriously doubt that people in China still use "Comrade" as a form of address; in fact if I recall correctly, that's been out of style for decades, including during the Mao period.

So, while it's reasonable to predict that China will compete in the world for resources and may also engage in resource wars, all this about invading the US and taking over the land sounds like a crock of poop.

---

Wolfe's point about calculating the necessary dieoff for each country seems like a reasonable exercise. Mircea's item about 100% of the population being sustainable sounds like hogwash and Mircea doesn't offer any support for it, so we can dismiss it.

---

When looking at countries with enough land to produce food and fuel, factor in the population growth curves to determine the point at which they will go over the edge.

Also factor in for local tyranny, for example Myanmar, since such regimes usually lie to suite their needs and can't be trusted. Needless to say you don't want to move to a place where you are not only not a citizen but may be subjected to arbitrary measures by the local regime and have no recourse.

I take a dim view of "excoticism," the idea that it's interesting to move to some "exotic" destination. The grass is always greener somewhere else, except that it really isn't. F--- exoticism; people need to use their heads.

---

All forms of sustainability require reducing population to levels that are supportable. At minimum this means unlimited contraception and equal rights for women. Half of all current births are accidents; giving people the means to prevent the accidents, in and of itself, would lead to a population that declines to a sustainable level. Unfortunately we've gone way beyond the point where voluntary measures alone are suffiient, but for now I'll leave it to others to squabble over which involuntary measures they prefer. I'm going to be satisfied by just getting the debate going and keeping it front & center.

---

Also to consider: local regions within countries. If a region is capable of defending itself, it is capable of repelling invaders and thereby preventing going into overshoot due to a human tidal wave from elsewhere.

[Mircea]

Hi, there's a thread where people are trying to create a list of countries that produce both enough energy and food.

I am looking for a list of countries with enough land to produce both enough food and bio-energy to meet all food and energy needs of their own populations.

So there is a serious problem here, because both East Asia and India, the United States and most of Europe and the Middle East and North Africa can never become food and energy independent because they don't have enough land.

Maybe the countries who can supply twice as much food and bio-energy than they need, can export some of it to the regions that can't? Just an idea.

I'm not sure I understand this. You're saying all countries on the planet will "bet the farm" on bio-fuel?

Why would they do something silly like that when other technology is available, like nuclear power? A uranium atom produces about 10 Million times more energy than an atom of coal.

Farmers will grow what ever sells best. Right now in the US, low oil soy beans (not used in bio-diesel) bring more money than regular soy beans.

It's hard to imagine a scenario in which farmer's would slit their own throats by growing crops that are unprofitable. Just because bio-fuels might sell for a high price doesn't mean the farmers make any money.

[FairMaiden]

First of all, that article quoting the alleged speech in China sets off my BS detector bigtime.

While the article itself claims not to be able to substantiate its authenticity...my gut is telling me something completely different. Living in Canada, I've seen alot ppl comment on our energy/water/land available and thats its a good place post peak. I highly doubt that other countries & rich elite haven't already come to that conclusion...our interior of our province is peppered with rich from other countries having "second homes" (I use quotations bc I suspect they have more than 2 ) With all the talk on here about resource wars and neighbours fighting for left over food, etc...does it not stand to reason that "have not" countries will be eyeing countries like Canada & the USA for their resources? It works both ways. When things get hard enough desperate measures may be taken. I certainly don't feel safe being hours away from plentiful water supplies & oil sands. Our agreements with the US give them first dibs on our resources...we are after all a third world country in our development of our resources...which puts the heat on the US instead of us directly.

[Judgie]

Thanks for the list Bioman , great stuff. You know me though. I, like Pstarr, wouldn't mind seeing where you got the data from. Link to the thread where the list was prepared, please?

[TheTurtle]

Thanks for the list Bioman , great stuff. You know me though. I, like Pstarr, wouldn't mind seeing where you got the data from.

Bioman won't be giving any data any time soon. Like his previous alias of Lorenzo, he is no longer with us.

[Baldwin]

Put Ireland on this list. Ireland had more people right before the Potato Famine than it does today (includes the Republic and Northern Ireland). Ireland can support itself with horse-and-plow agriculture if it needed to...and still have room to grow.

[TonyPrep]

You missed out New Zealand.