Menu
Posted on May 20, 2015 | 21 Comments
…and a brief rumination on statistics.
First up, this recent post by Elizabeth Royte about city agriculture, claiming that 20% of the world’s food is grown in urban farms. Cue appropriately incredulous responses from commenters below the post questioning the figure. Think about it. Roughly half the world’s people live in towns, so assuming urban agriculture feeds only urban people, the suggestion is that around 40% of the food eaten in towns is grown in them. Hmmm.
In response to the doubters, Royte refers to this report from the Worldwatch Institute, whence the figure derives. The report states “Roughly 15–20 percent of the world’s food is grown in urban areas” without further elaboration or citation. So not much traction there. Put it this way – about 33% of global land area reputedly is devoted to agriculture, while the splendidly named GRUMP project reports that towns account for 3% of global land take. Let’s suppose that a generous 15-20% of those urban areas is devoted to urban agriculture (where do I get that figure from? Well, that’s for you to ask and me to know), that would imply urban agriculture is around 14 times more productive per acre than rural – which to be honest may just about sneak within the bounds of the not-totally-incredible, bearing in mind the different agricultural styles and scales involved. Not totally incredible, but not very likely – especially since my 15-20% urban agricultural land figure is surely an overestimate. And I doubt much urban agriculture is devoted to the meat-grain nexus which supplies much of the global, and certainly urban, plate.
Maybe the Worldwatch figure refers to proportion of production by value – all those fancy micro-salads and strawberries grown in vertical farms and the like. Still sounds like an overestimate to me, though. Or maybe the definition of ‘urban’ – which in many global datasets encompasses settlements of only 10,000 souls – includes peri-urban areas of small towns where undoubtedly a lot of global agriculture does take place. Or, as someone pointed out in response to Royte’s article, which referred to a figure of 800 million people globally involved in urban agriculture, perhaps it was assumed that all of these people produced all of the food they needed.
Another commenter wrote “I don’t care about the numbers being correct I’m just glad to see a movement towards nature”, and I’ll happily drink to that. There are endless reasons beyond mere productivity why supporting urban agriculture makes sense. The only rider I’d add is that there are plenty of people around who are eager to beat the drum for urbanism in general, like him, and him, and them, because of ideological prejudice political opposition to rural life and peasant production. Presently these types have to content themselves with arguments about the misery of peasant existence and the environmental negatives of rural life (often tendentiously imputing the ecological costs of agriculture practiced in rural areas to rural people alone), but how much better it would be for them if cities could escape their moorings in the messy, quasi-natural ecosystems of the countryside and float off into a Futurist realm of pure self-sustaining urban humanism. And so I say unto you, beware that 20% figure as it begins its inexorable creep upwards in the burgeoning fantasy of human overcoming.
Talking of dodgy statistics, another one recently placed under the spotlight in an interesting article by my LWA colleague Ed Hamer1 is the oft-repeated figure that globally we need to produce 70% more food by 2050. As Ed points out, since global population is predicted to increase only by about 30% by that date it’s not immediately obvious why so much more food is needed. More meat for the masses perhaps? In any case, the figure seems to suit the position of the ‘new productivists’ who argue that we need a big biotechnological push in order to meet future needs, though equally one could argue that in order to provide 70% more food by 2050 we need a big political push to get more people into small-scale agriculture and support peasant farming. I wonder why that argument doesn’t get so much airplay? But, more importantly, according to Ed it turns out that the 70% figure comes from a modelling exercise concerning how much more food is likely to be produced by 2050, an exercise involving various unrealistic assumptions to boot. In other words, the figure involves a methodological error graver still than the classic social science fallacy of turning an is into an ought – turning a may be into a must.
Oh well, facts never really prove much anyway, still less factoids, and fictoids like the 70% figure least of all. So I plan to carry on farming my own humble plot as best I can – a peri-urban semi-peasant producing for myself and for others, more than what my land provided before I took it over, less than what it could perhaps provide if it were all ploughed up for cereals, but probably a better mix of stuff overall. Live those contradictions…
References
1. Hamer, E. 2014/15. Feeding the nine billion. The Land, 17: 31-3.
If you like my writing, please help me keep the blog going by donating!
Subscribe via RSS
Love those contradictions, so living them seems only right.
Why doesn’t your small farm future argument get more airplay? Too few peasants with internet connectivity perhaps? It makes too much sense? You don’t have a multi-million pound ad budget and an agenda to rule the world? And then there are those nuisance factoids and fictoids (great word, BTW)… you (rightly IMHO) seem reticent to make up your own fictoids to support the campaign. Why should any contrary fictoid creator take you seriously?
And a nice nod to Sam Clemens – one of my favorite contrarians 🙂
Very plausible hypotheses, Clem. Now would you care to put some figures to them?
Some figures?
I figure if more peasants had disposable free time (and sufficient disposable income) to participate in social media we might have a simple and straight forward means of measuring their sentiment on issues of poverty, food security, social justice, significance of farm size, and so forth. As it is we are subjected to stories of Indian farmer suicides that are trotted out by many on both sides of food issues as evidence their side is more correct. I figure suicide is horrible – no matter why or how someone comes to choose it.
And furthermore, I figure there are more folks willing to scream and shout about any and all issues that come to the fore these days. Taking a reasoned approach that doesn’t fit a major party line set of talking points is just TOO boring. Who wants to listen to that?
And furthermore, I also figure the folks with the deepest pockets might conclude they also have the most to lose if anything changes (or changes in a direction they can’t profit from). Having enormous resources at their disposal allows them to shape the public debate. As a corollary then I also figure if one wants to push a point in this ‘public debate’ it might be expedient to throw wads of cash into the arena. Short of this approach I figure it takes lots of patience sharing reasoned opinions and holding other points of view up to the light. Tilting at windmills comes to mind – but that’s just my crude figuring.
So I’m guessing these aren’t the exact sort of figures you’re hunting for. That figures.
Maybe I should move on to modeling?
Nicely figured, but yes I was figuring on some different kinds of figures. Actually, here in England we ‘figure’ less than in the US, though it’s creeping in a bit with the Americanization of the language. We tend to reckon, or think, more than we figure. So I reckon you’re right, but I’d like to see some figures…no, numbers…to prove it…
It appears all the figuring, err reckoning I’ve done in this thread concerns matters of human behaviors or conditions. And while I feel entitled to my opinions, I am not well equipped to search out actual datasets that might bolster such.
On the matter of agricultural productivity, however, I can come prepared to share some honest to goodness numbers and possible insight(s) to the relative veracity of such. One source of global ag production data would be FAO and two links seem salient:
http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx
The first couple figures there rank global ag products, their values and metric tonnes of production (2012 data). Both animal and plant products are presented. [BTW, soy shows rather well].
The second and a bit more up-to-date:
http://faostat3.fao.org/home/E
I didn’t discover any urban vs rural breakdowns at either link, but I’ve not drilled down into the bowels of either. One take-away in terms of feeding the nine billion… we’ve been doing a better job creating sufficient calories over the last ten years. Whether we’ll continue the trend remains a valid question and one these particular data are not qualified to address (but then mere quantifications of past performance do not predict the future do they?).
Thanks – good detective work…
Well said: “if cities could escape their moorings from the messy, quasi-natural ecosystems of the countryside and float off into a Futurist realm of pure self-sustaining urban humanism.”
Thanks Andy – oh there’s more where that came from, I’m just warming up…
One of my favorite peeves as well.
And a well-reasoned bit of figurin’ (sorry). My doctor addressed the rural/city divide last year, while we argued about phone service instead of my health. He is a libertarian. So his response to my catalog of how rural America is being systematically robbed of its infrastructure was “who needs the countryside.” And he was serious. I replied, “try and eat your city.”
Or, take the colleague (please), who when I broached the topic of peak oil, said “we will use electricity instead of oil.” Which, while not addressing the topic at hand does address the topic a general collapse of thought and reason. figuring.
Yes, it’s funny how many people don’t seem to grasp the basics of energy and electricity. I’m finding that living in an off grid house is quite instructive in that respect – post on that coming up soon.
Come on guys, international energy politics is way beyond most people’s *ken* (another ancient english word for ‘reasoning’ just about still in use, beat that fellow pedants). They are quite right: when the oil runs out we will run our cars and everything else on electricity, mainly generated by nuclear power. As I’ve said before, this is not necessarily desirable but it is probably probable. Sorry to break it to you…..
Oh and before you all start laying into me, I’ve just heard on the radio that fields of solar panels are actually being used as part of a “polyculture” with grazing sheep which is really cool.
Tom, I’m not sure how you can be quite so confident about the ease of this future energy transition. Presently about 1% of the world’s energy is nuclear – and it’s costly, and grid-tied. We’re massively wedded to fossil fuels, because they’re by the far the cheapest, easiest, most versatile and most concentrated energy source we have. It’s hard to see solar farms here in the UK bridging the gap either. Doubtless people will figure out some kind of post-oil energy mix that’ll do a job, but who knows what kind of job…I don’t think it’ll be quite so simple as ‘using electricity instead of oil’.
Most concentrated? Forgive my rusty physics, but I’m still persuaded a pound of fissionable uranium packs bit more punch than a pound of petrol. Still, oil does yield most of the attributes you’ve noted – and if/when its availability is compromised we will likely be doing more than running extension cords all about the place.
There has also been quite a bit in the business press recently about declining uranium stocks. Match that with the cost of building and maintaining said reactors: all of which to date have relied on massive subsidies and externalizing costs and risks. In a world where the fantasy of endless economic growth hits a wall of reality I wonder about the viability of this particular mode of energy. I’d place my bet on a horse drawn wagon before I would on nuclear power. Just sayin’.
Here we go again, more pessimism. They’ll do it because they have to. You’re telling me that combined hydro, wind, solar, ethanol and nuclear couldn’t conceivably uphold anything like civilisation as we know it? Remember, we’re going to sort out the energy use in fertilisers issue by composting hedge trimmings and laying clover leys, etc.
More frightening for me is the omen of Dennis Skinner not letting fly with a one-liner at Black Rod this year, which is already causing a constitutional crisis, I’m told. It is said he fears for his position on the rebels’ bench with the scots muscling in.
Clem, of course you’re right. Though I’d be interested to know whether by the time you’ve got a pound of uranium out of the ground and turning the PTO on an electric tractor it actually is more concentrated than a pound of oil/petrol. Quite possibly.
Now then, Tom. I’ll do my best not to rise to your bait. If your considered view of my position on fertility is that “we’re going to sort out the energy use in fertilisers by composting hedge trimmings and laying clover leys” then honestly I give up – I doubt there’s anything I can write that will make you actually hear what I’m saying. And talking of not hearing, your “they’ll do it because they have to” is not ‘optimism’. It’s sticking your fingers in your ears, shutting your eyes and hoping somebody will sort out your mess for you. Could hydro, wind, solar, ethanol and nuclear uphold anything like civilisation as we know it? Yes, possibly something ‘like’ civilisation as we know it. At present they’re holding up precisely 11% of civilisation as we know it, the rest of global energy needs coming from fossil fuels. Why do you think that is? Might also be worth going to a few farms and construction sites and seeing what proportion of the heavy lifting our society relies upon comes from those sources. Will future innovation transform these technologies so they can take up the 89% slack? Maybe. I don’t know. And neither do you.
Meanwhile, an interesting article in ‘The Guardian’ today reports that India is planning to use up to three times more coal in its power plants by 2030 than at present and will refuse to cap its carbon emissions because, in Modi’s words, of its ‘right to growth’. You worry about Dennis Skinner if you like, but excuse me for not taking your optimism too seriously. I’m with Brian. Invest in wagons.
There, how did I do?
Actually composting hedge trimmings and green manures would do it as you know, a seven year rotation with 3 years under clover and overwintering cover crops. Tell me i’m wrong again.
I came here a couple of years ago to ask questions about whether or not tilling was appropriate in ecological agriculture and I got my answer so I hung around but ever since then large chunks of your thinking has been pessimistic, disregarding the basic reality that we are here and we have more stuff than our grandparents including the ability to survive cancer, a huge achievement due to science and a social system that utilises ambition and creativity. Regardless of the fact that it is corporations that benefit the most, we have benefitted too and to ignore that is disingenuous.
Actually as you keep falling out with everybody on the internet even your friends, I’m off to find somewhere where I can have different opinions than you which is a shame because I’ve just discovered the clifton park system and you’ve done an article on grass. I wont be joining the debate. Much of the flame wars you indulge in across the internet are sometimes funny but sometimes shameful.
Fair play to you, sir. Indeed, there’s little point debating with people where there’s insufficient overlap to make useful headway. For my part, I don’t find your ‘optimism/pessimism’ couplet or your take on science, our superior quantities of ‘stuff’ or our social system illuminating, but I guess that’s a debate we won’t be having. The blogosphere is an abrasive place but I’ll bear your criticisms in mind if I carry on doing this much longer. Thanks at any rate for your comments on this site – I’ve found many of them interesting and informative.
Chris, I came here chasing links for another conversation and ended up down this rabbit hole.
Tom makes a rather unfortunate argument based on cancer.
Sorry, but So Far War on Cancer Has Been a Bust – Scientific American
And while we are at it… Human Lifespans Nearly Constant for 2,000 Years
Hi Ruben, you’ve taken me on a trip down memory lane here, all the way back to Tom’s resignation. The human lifespan issue interests me, and the misuse of life expectancy data has long been a personal bugbear of mine too. But the link you post doesn’t cite any evidence for the idea that human lifespans have been nearly constant for 2000 years – do you have such data at your fingertips?