On the cover on our book, Famine in the West, the picture of a Western child begging for food from an Arab is intended to symbolise our future dependence on the Middle East for our food, in the sense that farming cannot now function without oil, and as most remaining supplies are in that region, any interruption of supplies from there would threaten our food industry.
However, we could just as easily have used a picture of President Putin or someone representing a future Russian leader, because Russia will soon almost control the Nitrogen fertiliser market and the supply of the gas feedstock used for its manufacture.
Nitrogen fertiliser has been one of the key factors allowing the massive increase in crop yields over the last 60 years that have temporarily raised the carrying capacity of the Earth way above what it otherwise would have been. Around 40 – 45% of grain yield is now due to these fertilisers, and as farmers are careful to use only the optimum amounts, any reduction in availability would cause yield losses.
Russia and a few other smaller but equally unreliable countries have become dominant because of natural gas. Gas is the feedstock for most nitrogen fertiliser production, so for gas-rich nations, turning that gas in to fertiliser is one way to diversify, but more importantly fertiliser can be shipped around the world more easily then gas.
So, Russia has become a major producer, but so have some of the ex-Soviet nations who have built production facilities near ports at the end of a Russian gas pipeline. European manufacturers using North Sea gas have found it hard to compete and have been closing down production . As gas supplies from the North Sea are declining faster then expected, we will soon see a time when either the fertiliser or the gas comes from unreliable countries.
Russia is now taking a more unfriendly stance with the West and considers energy its trump card. In any future disagreement we could be deprived of our main yield driver with disastrous consequences.
The UK government along with governments in Europe and the U.S are at last becoming very concerned about our increasing dependence on unreliable and unfriendly energy suppliers. In many countries efforts are underway to convince the public that nuclear is the way ahead. This is understandable as it is estimated that by 2030 Europe as a whole will rely on imported gas for 82% of its supplies and oil for 93%.
In the UK, Alistair Darling made a statement to the commons that said, “The UK is also becoming increasingly dependent on imported oil and gas at a time when global demand is accelerating… With a third of our current electricity generation capacity due to close in the next 20 years, there is also a pressing need for investment in new low carbon sources…”
Unfortunately, even if nuclear is a good option we don’t yet have a way to power farming by nuclear, so if there was a severe reduction in oil and gas flowing to Europe and the U.S, the food production and distribution system would fail.
Critics of the Iraq war often say that it was all about oil, and I suppose that they are correct. However, I don’t believe the coalition ever intended to steal the oil.  What they wanted was to make sure the oil kept flowing by removing Saddam Hussain who had previously attacked two of his neighbouring countries, and install a pro-western democratic government.
This they thought, would have brought some stability to the Middle East, serve as a warning to other rogue states not to step out of line, and create a military base right in the centre of things. Unfortunately, it’s not turned out this well. Iraq must be delighted that the coalition has removed its main enemy, Hussain, and installed a Shi’ite government.
Iran and the many terrorist groups in the Middle East, while hating each other, will work towards removing all Western troops from Iraq and then the entire region. The day that the last troops pull out is the day we should fill every available tank or can with fuel and start stocking up on food.
War could quickly break out between Shi’ite and Sunny, Arab and Israeli and Al-quida and the House of Saud. For many, the destruction of the oil infrastructure to deny the West oil would be a major aim.
With the West increasingly dependent on imported oil to operate, shortages could lead to a collapse of the economic system and failure of food production.
George Bush and Tony Blair have long been aware of how disastrous it would be if oil slows or stops from the Middle East and were did what they thought was right to protect their own people.
In retrospect, a better policy would have been to introduce drastic fuel saving legislation to make us less dependent on the Middle East, but such measures would have been less popular with the electorate then a successful war.
As we in the West are now completely dependent on oil and gas to produce our food, and as most remaining oil is in the Middle East, events in that region will have a major impact on food security in the future.
On May 18th 07, The Times reported, “The world is losing its last hope of making peace in the Middle East and could face the real danger that the conflict between Israel and the Arab and Muslim worlds will continue indefinitely, according to King Abdullah ll of Jordan…  The Sandhurst-trained Jordanian monarch, who served in the British Army, is particularly concerned about the fallout from Iraq. His country of five million is already host to 750,000 Iraqis and if the violence increases the refugee numbers will swell.
“What we have seen in Iraq is a steady burn. If it was to go to civil war, then it would likely extend beyond the borders. It is a Pandora’s Box,” he said. “If there was an escalation and an exodus of more Iraqis to Jordan, that would be very damaging…”
« Previous Page
