Ecological Crisis Indicators

TOC: price of oil | grain reserves | ecological footprint
Summary: Gather indicators of global ecological crisis here.

Main Indicators

Will pick three global indicators to track hypothesis of Collapse:

  1. Price of a barrel of sweet crude -- the Energy Indicator.
  2. Global grain reserves -- the Food Indicator
  3. Net primary production -- the Ecological Carrying Capacity Indicator

I. Price of Oil

The WSY web site offers an overview on the pivotal issue of Peak Oil. Its gyrations can be followed through the Association for the Study of Peak Oil.

Since 9/11/2001, the world price for a barrel of crude has increased from a 2006 price-adjusted level of $25.56 to over $70 in mid-2007. For a historical overview of price and supply conditions, see Oil Price History and Analysis at WRTG Economics. ^


II. Grain Reserves

World grain production per capita peaked in 1983 at 343 kilograms per person and has steadily declined since then, to 303 in 2006. To comprehend this indicator, start with World Grain Stocks Fall to 57 Days of Consumption: Grain Prices Starting to Rise by Lester Brown, from Energy Bulletin, June 16, 2006.:

This year's world grain harvest is projected to fall short of consumption by 61 million tons, marking the sixth time in the last seven years that production has failed to satisfy demand. As a result of these shortfalls, world carryover stocks at the end of this crop year are projected to drop to 57 days of consumption, the shortest buffer since the 56-day-low in 1972 that triggered a doubling of grain prices.
World carryover stocks of grain, the amount in the bin when the next harvest begins, are the most basic measure of food security. Whenever stocks drop below 60 days of consumption, prices begin to rise. It thus came as no surprise when the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) projected in its June 9 world crop report that this year?s wheat prices will be up by 14 percent and corn prices up by 22 percent over last year's.

See also Global Food Trends by Janet Raloff in May 31, 2003, Science News Online

Last year, for the third year in four, world per-capita grain production fell. Even more disturbing in a world where people still go hungry, at 294 kilograms, last year's per capita grain yield was the lowest in more than 30 years. Indeed, the global grain harvest has not met demand for 4 years, causing governments and food companies to mine stocks of these commodities that they were holding in reserve.

The WTO rules ban grain reserves built up by any member nation, on the grounds that this will inhibit international trade. Marcia Merry Baker writes in Globalization's Policy of Famine: Wheat Supplies Plunge in Executive Intelligence Review, October 2006:

The banning of national grain reserves was made explicit in the 1995 World Trade Organization tenets, and before that, was part of the years-long talks by the GATT (UN General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), on how to "reform" world agriculture. The sophism used was that, citizens of every nation had a "right" to access their food on world markets, and not rely on developing their own national food and farm systems. Only Japan has defied this WTO globaloney, and still maintains a "ricebowl reserve."

Baker, like Lester Brown, fears that the shift to biofuels will cause hunger on a global scale:

But under the radical shift of corn into ethanol, U.S. exports stand to be wiped out. Of this year's U.S. crop, 20% is going into ethanol—up from 3% in 2000. Next year, it could be 25%. The following year, 35%. Continuing this direction, given the worsening world grain shortage, involves non-linear effects amounting to a policy of famine.

The price of grain continues to rise to record levels and reserves plummet. Food thus soars in price and the prospects of more hunger also grows. See recent data on corn and wheat. I refer to a recent article depicting the state of the problem of food in April, 2008: The other global crisis: rush to biofuels is driving up price of food, from the London Independent, 4/13/2008.^


III. The Human Ecological Footprint: Human Appropriation of Net Primary Production (HANPP)

Net Primary Production measures the rate of growth of biomass within an ecosystem. The percentage that of NPP that humans appropriate indicates what is leftover for the other species that inhabit planet Earth. As humans appropriate more NPP, less remains available for the promotion of nature, thus reducing diversity.

Since 1980, estimates of HANPP has been about 32%. Another expression of the same thought is how many Earths would be needed to support humanity sustainably, now estimated at about 1.25. This indicator will change more slowly but will track the overall impact of humanity on earth. The seminal article is Rojstaczer, S., Sterling, S. M. & Moore, N. J., Human appropriation of photosynthesis products, Science, 294, 2549 - 2552, (2001). ^

Important complementary indicators track carrying capacity, environmental sustainability index, and ecological footprint. See the Utube clip with vv


IV. Global Warming

This indicator had been resisted due to its near-cliche status and level of controversy, but was included for these reasons:

  1. Global warming requires an energy initiative, so is tied up with Peak Oil as an opportunity to build a sustainable world.
  2. Global warming will drive up food prices and hunger, diminish regional water supplies, and provide a central cause to many other tragic consequences, such as environmental refugees.

Much attention continues to focus on this critical issue. It can't be ignored. However, global warming may lag Peak Oil and food shortages. Along with (HANPP), global warming must at least be tracked as a background factor to the other trends, above.


Wayne Hayes, Ph.D. | Initialized: 7/10/2007 | Last Update: 4/13/2008