|
|
|
|
Home About MCH About Manning & Dymphna Clark About the House Membership Events Papers |
|
Manning
Clark House Forum Making Canberra Sustainable Canberra's population size in light of converging catastrophesPaper by Jenny Goldie Short Biography
IntroductionOur sustainability can only be determined within the context of the broader situation. Globally and nationally, we face at least two converging catastrophes: climate change, and Peak Oil. Potentially catastrophic, if not actually so as yet, are declining farmland productivity and deteriorating ecosystems. Let us look at ecosystem decline. Declining ecosystemsEarlier this year, about 1400 scientists reported on their four-year study: the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005). There were four major findings, namely:
Ecosystems provide services, such as provision of clean air and the absorption of wastes, worth trillions of dollars a year. The fact that the health of many is declining has severe ramifications, not only for other species but also for the human economy and society. Indeed, Wackernagel et al found in 2002 that the planet had passed its absorptive and assimilative capacity back in 1979 and the situation was worsening by one percent a year (Wackernagel 2002). In other words, we have now overshot the carrying capacity of the planet by 25 per cent or more. Australia’s environment is not doing too well either. Five out of six environmental indicators regressed during the decade up to 2002 including biodiversity, land clearance, land degradation, inland waters and greenhouse gas emissions (ABS 2002). Only air quality in cities improved. The State of Environment 2001report noted, amongst many other problems, that large areas of acidic and sodic soils contribute to poor water quality, secondary salinity and loss of ecosystem function. And increasing pressures to extract surface and groundwater for human use are leading to continuing deterioration of the health of water bodies (SoE 2001). Food production concernsWorldwide, agricultural production tripled in the last four decades largely because of increased yields. The rate of increase in yields is falling off, however. Total calorie production kept pace with population, largely because of expansion of calorie-rich oil crops (McMichael and Butler 2004). But production of grain has been falling behind population growth for twenty years, that is, kilograms per capita has fallen from about 380 to 330 kgs. This is a matter of concern as cereal grains account for 50-60 per cent of world food energy, either consumed directly or via its conversion to beef, chicken or pork. As more land is brought into food production, about as much land is lost to human infrastructure such as cities and roads, or to abandonment of degraded land. Every year about 10 million hectares are lost to soil erosion (Pimentel and Wilson 2004). Another 10 million hectares are lost to salinisation, usually from poor irrigation practices. Indeed, nearly a quarter of useable land has undergone reduced productivity from soil erosion, waterlogging or salinity of irrigated land, affecting about a billion people. When there were food shortages in the past, new land could be put to the plough or more fertiliser could be used on existing crops to raise yields (Brown 2004). Now, with nearly 6.5 billion mouths to feed and growing by over 70 million a year, there is very little land left, with the possible exception of the cerrado in Brazil. We face a situation of diminishing returns whereby the only new land available is mostly of poor quality, and, after a certain point, using more fertiliser has very little effect on productivity. We can no longer expect dramatic gains in yields from breeding or biotechnology. Much of current research is on resistance to disease and pests rather than increasing yield per se. Added to these problems, are those of falling water tables in most continents from over-pumping aquifers; rising temperatures from global warming; loss of cropland to non-farm uses such as housing, roads and the production of ethanol; and loss of cropland and rangelands to erosion. Overgrazing of rangelands has led to desertification, particularly in China. In Australia, the 2001 State of Environment report noted that, in Australia, land degradation, including erosion, is still a major contributor of turbidity, nutrients and pesticides to waterways, as well as loss of soil fertility. Altered fire and grazing regimes, pests and weeds continue to affect the rangelands (SoE 2001). In his book ‘Feed or Feedback’, Canberran Duncan Brown argues that modern industrial agriculture is intrinsically unsustainable. By selling our food overseas, we are exporting the very nutrients and minerals that are essential to grow the food in the first place. It is a one-way mining operation. If we are to achieve a sustainable agricultural system, we must ensure that the flow of nutrients between the soil and human population is wholly reversible (Brown 2003). Climate changeOne clear piece of evidence that we have passed the absorptive and assimilative capacity of the planet is climate change. The biosphere has not been able to absorb enough carbon dioxide and other emissions, by-products of our industrial economy. These gases have accumulated in the atmosphere, causing global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that there will be an increase in climate extremes, namely drought, floods, heat waves, avalanches and windstorms, the negative impact of which will fall disproportionately on the poor (IPCC 2001).
Climate change will inevitably raise additional challenges to an already challenged world food system. Global warming of a few degrees will see an increase in crop yields in temperate regions although a decrease in yields with a large rise in temperature. There will be a drop in yield in the tropics, however, even with a small rise in temperature, and an even worse drop in yields if higher temperatures are combined with a decline in rainfall (O’Neill et al 2001). For Australia, the CSIRO has identified a number of scenarios including an increase in temperature of 0.4oC to 2.0oC by 2030 and between 1.0oC and 6.0oC by 2070; more heatwaves and fewer frosts; more pronounced cycles of droughts and heavy rains; reductions in rainfall and run-off in the southern and eastern parts of the continent but increases in the tropical north; more severe wind speeds in cyclones associated with storm surges and rising sea-levels; and an increase high-bushfire propensity days (AGO 2005). And of course, we in the Canberra region will be subject to climate change, with higher temperatures and a probable reduction in run-off. If you look at the CSIRO projected temperature chart, Canberra sits on the border between two colours. We can say that by 2030, Canberra will be between 0.4 and 1.8 degrees warmer and by 2070, between 1 and 5.5 degrees warmer. The projected rainfall chart is more confusing as we lie where four squares meet, in two of which it could be 20% wetter or 20% drier, whereas there is a tendency to less rainfall in the other two, even up to 40 per cent less rainfall by 2070 (CSIRO 2001). Tim Flannery and Ian Lowe, both Patrons of my organisation, have done a splendid job of raising awareness on the dangers of climate change through their recent books ‘The Weather Makers’ and ‘Living in the Hothouse’ (Flannery 2005, Lowe 2005). Even the Federal Government, although not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, is now acknowledging that human-induced climate change is real and must be addressed through both mitigation and adaptation (AGO, 2005). Indeed, the Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO) notes that although agriculture is adaptable to climate change to some extent, some farms and crops are at risk such as those already stressed through land degradation or those at the edge of their climate tolerance (AGO 2005). Tim Flannery fears that Australian agriculture, already marginal, could go to the wall with a temperature increase of three degrees. The AGO says climate change will increase pressure on cities, industries and natural systems that all rely on water. Many southern cities are already suffering water stress and supply constraints. Climate change may also affect energy supply. Electricity supply is sensitive to both extreme weather events and temperature itself as it degrades transmission capacity. Yet our energy infrastructure is now approaching the point where there is little redundancy at peak periods and there is reduced capacity to sustain cumulative impacts (AGO 2005). Interestingly, the last of the four issues, Peak Oil, may in fact ameliorate climate change, but many fear it may cause economic meltdown. Peak OilThe world is now approaching ‘Peak Oil’ where demand will begin to exceed supply and prices will rise, sometime between now and 2020, but most likely between now and 2008. Matthew Simmons, an energy investment banker and author of the important book Twilight in the Desert, is a leading voice warning of peak oil (Simmons 2005). In a web interview with Foreign Policy last month, he rejected claims by Saudi officials and economists that supply can be increased to meet growing demand. He believes it is not possible to lift daily production from the current 85 million barrels of oil a day (mbd) to 101 mbd that would delay peak oil until 2020. The faster oil is extracted, the faster pressure is dissipated. Over-extraction, he says, leads to production collapse. Simmons believes that in 10 years time, we will be producing only 75 mbd. New fields in Kazakhstan are producing poor quality crude. Sweet light crude has already peaked. The tar sands of Canada have potential, but getting it out and processing it is an energy-intensive process, says Simmons. It may not be worthwhile extracting oil from the tar sands in energy terms (Foreign Policy 2005). Peak oil will lead to increasingly higher energy prices. This will have a flow-on effect right through the economy with higher prices for transported goods, notably food; air travel and overseas tourism will become increasingly unaffordable; a recession will be likely if not economic collapse in some countries; and a whole range of products that are made from oil or natural gas will become increasingly scarce such as plastics, medicines, synthetic fabrics, road surfaces, cosmetics, detergents, fertilisers — in fact, most modern comforts. Peak Oil has particular implications for agriculture. About 70 per cent of water removed from its sources is used for irrigation. Food can be produced in arid regions if there is sufficient water from rivers or aquifers, and energy to move water around. Much of this energy to move water around, however, is based on fossil fuels, particularly oil. Thus irrigation that is not gravity-fed will be increasingly expensive, and pumping from deep aquifers may become uneconomic. A lot of land will have to be returned to dryland farming, which, of course, has lower yields than irrigated crops. Add to this the increasing cost of running machinery and fertilisers (nitrogenous fertilisers being made from natural gas), and industrial farming will become increasingly problematic. If you think that Peak Oil is not imminent, may I draw your attention to two news items in the past two weeks. The first was a story by Tom Whipple in the Falls Creek, Virginia, local paper called The Peak Oil Crisis: the first casualty. He suggests that historians, when they come to write the history of the 21st Century, ‘may well record that the African nation of Zimbabwe was the first to succumb to peak oil’ (Whipple 2005). Zimbabwe’s government led by Robert Mugabe had drained the treasury with a war, then it drove out white farmers, a strategy that devastated exports. The Government failed to make the reforms demanded by the International Monetary Fund so could no longer avail itself of IMF services. When the price of crude oil exceeded $65 a barrel, oil imports simply stopped. Whipple writes: By last week, nearly all buses and commuter taxis in the capitol, Harare, had stopped running, forcing tens of thousands to walk to work. While there are still a lot of private cars on the road, they are being fuelled with $36 a gallon black market gasoline. Municipal services have stopped. There are no trash collections, no ambulances, or operating public works vehicles. Only one fire truck has any fuel left. The police immediately commandeer any fuel they come across. Clean water and electricity are available sporadically. Hospitals are out of supplies and the staff is fleeing. What was once one of the cleanest, most modern cities in Africa is nearly finished. Whipple adds that not all this human misery is attributable to peak oil; an incompetent government is playing a major part in the country's economic demise well in advance of better-governed nations. He says, however, it is representative of what we will see again and again as oil depletion sets in (Whipple 2005). As a postscript, on radio news on October 9, I heard that the Zimbabwean army had run out of food and could no longer feed its soldiers. The second news item that I would like you to look at is an item in the Adelaide Advertiser of 6 October by Greg Kelton called Petrol almost ran out. It says: The arrival of an oil tanker yesterday carrying more than 30 million litres has helped to prevent a desperate fuel shortage in South Australia. The situation has raised serious concerns about the reliability of the state's unleaded petrol supply. Adelaide came close to running out of unleaded, with stocks dropping to critical levels. Adelaide is not in Zimbabwe. It’s here in Australia. We have to ask what would have happened in Adelaide had those tankers not arrived. People working to work, I imagine, just like in Harare. Of course, the shutdown of 95 per cent of the Gulf of Mexico supply following two hurricanes in September had something to do with it. But it starkly illustrated the increasing vulnerability of Australia because of our need to import oil to maintain our economy. And even assuming the tankers will keep coming, the price is likely to keep going up. Last year in August, Dr Ali Samsam Bakhtiari, a senior executive of the National Iranian Oil Company with 30 years’ experience, spoke at a conference in Perth. He warned that petrol prices in Australia would be $3/litre by 2007 and $10/litre by 2010. (Environment Victoria 2004). Canberra’s SustainabilityWhat does all this mean for Canberra? The global ecosystem situation is mirrored in the Canberra region, of course, with declining river quality, weed-infested riparian zones and rangelands, and destruction of forest and grasslands for urban development. There has been some admirable progress in protection and restoration of habitat, and in removal of weeds; nevertheless, many of our valuable ecosystems are declining in quality. Some food production concerns are mirrored in Australia though there are still areas of surplus — oranges and wine to name but two. Degradation, however, is a major problem with dryland salinity and acidification threatening to take a lot of land out of production. Close to Canberra, the Yass River Valley that takes in Gundaroo, Sutton and Murrumbateman, is showing signs of salinisation that was set in train fifty years ago when land upstream was cleared. The implications for Canberra’s sustainability of ecosystem decline, land degradation affecting food production, and climate change mean that we cannot continue as we are. Farmers may have to change crops or, in the Yass Valley, take land out of production and replant trees extensively. We will have to endure more extreme weather events and more high-bushfire propensity days that may impact on electricity supply. We are probably going to have less run-off because of higher temperatures and hence more evaporation. If this happens, it’s not just a matter of getting out of the car and on a bus. We must ‘power-down’: move away from a carbon economy, travel less, grow food locally, live in more compact houses with solar panels and solar water heaters on the roof. The ramifications for the transport industry and agriculture are particularly significant. It will be too expensive to ship food and other goods large distances. We are going to have to consume less and buy locally, assuming there is some energy resource to manufacture the goods we want to buy. So where does this leave us with population? Even with these life-style changes, a sustainable population size will be much less than the current 320,000. In the past 100 years we have seen a four-fold expansion in the global population, made possible because of the prevalence of cheap oil that underpinned modern agriculture. Now as we approach the end of the age of cheap oil, a sustainable global population may be as low as a quarter or third of current levels, that is 1.5 to 2 billion. Australia’s population may have to come down eventually to 5 to 8 million, but if climate change knocks out Australian agriculture, then maybe as low as 2-3 million. You can extrapolate to Canberra, but perhaps by the end of the century it will be in the order of what Walter Burley-Griffin originally envisaged: about 70,000. At the very time a reduction in population is warranted, however, Australia will be facing pressure on its shores from environmental and economic refugees in the Pacific and SE Asia fleeing rising sea levels and food shortages. They will need to be accommodated somewhere. The only answer is dialogue now with our neighbouring nations about the catastrophes that confront us, and work out how best we can care for all people in the short-term without compromising sustainability in the long-term. References:
|