The author has forgotten to factor in competing landuses for existing agricultural land and of course the great water issue. The two major foodbowls for crop and fibre production are currently under threat from mining and coal seam gas production. They are the Darling Downs in Queensland and the Liverpool Plains in north west NSW. The latter is also in an area deemed by scientists to be the least effected by climate change. This area produces 41% of all durum wheat produced in Australian as well as huge quantities of grain and meat. The farmers in both areas are fighting the invasion of mining and coal seam gas. There is no such thing as agriculture being able to co-exist with these industries - the contamination issues of water and dust render this impossible. If these areas are not protected for agricultural use Australia will be even more incapable of producing in the long term. Given that coal and coal seam gas extraction render the land unusable and are extremely short term industries, government must intervene and save these areas.

I doubt that when the early colonialists first camped by a small creek they envisioned 1-4 million people living nearby. In cities like Adelaide we now have urban sprawl extending into saltbush country. It's not hard to pinpoint Australia's best soil and rainfall areas.. they're called suburbs. To revert some of that land to urban farming might need some sort of a crisis as in Detroit, USA.

When a fast food chain advertised a type of cow as its main protein source I thought people might be put off. It seems the reverse took place. Perhaps they could develop a bean burger with minimal or no requirement for water, animal death or energy conversion inefficiency. Trouble is the public probably wouldn't buy it. Let's see if we can maintain such a self indulgent diet when water, diesel and phosphate are all at premium prices and there are 70% more of us.

Michael Lardelli's article is much better than most of the raving loony anti-pop stuff, but stil he makes assumptions about what might happen in the future.
For example, let us assume, for a moment that the IPCC temperature projections bear any relation to reality. Will agricultural production go up or down? Projecting what happens to temperatures is bad enough, trying to work out what happens to, say, rainfall as a result is pure guesswork. CSIRO has various reports on this issue but the rest of should smile indulgently, express heartfelt thanks for their efforts and throw those reports away.
Then there is the issue that the only study of a real-world effort adjust to higher temperatures of which I am aware suggests that ag production will not be seriously affected.
This is a history of wheat production in America produced by Paul Rhode of the University of Michigan and Alan Olmstead of the University of California. Rhode and Olmstead recently presented a paper to the American Economic Society looking at how wheat production fared when it moved into parts of the American where growing temperatures were as much as two to five degrees centigrade higher in the mid-1800s and the late 1900s (Wall Street Journal, January 3, 2010). The economists concluded that agricultural production adapted successfully as farmers introduced new strains of wheat that grew well in the new climate.
But then we have the real problem. What happens if temperatures fall?

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/forum-warns-population-growth-will-leave-us-packed-in-like-chickens/story-e6frea83-1225863815127

Packed in like chickens, that's what we'll be. Chickens and without a grain to peck. I like this story. It has some substance. Even so..

According to the 2006 edition of Australian Food Statistics, the "value of Australia’s total farm and fisheries production
rose by almost 10 per cent to be worth $34.8 billion. Australia has maintained a strong export performance, with food exports worth $24 billion last year. That represents around 15 per cent of Australia’s
total merchandise exports."

"Australia’s food imports rose by 5 per cent to more than $6.8 billion in 2005-06. The main contributors to this rise were vegetables, fruits and nuts (up 20 per cent to $226 million), dairy products (up 13 per cent to $432 million), bakery products (up 10 per cent to $247 million) and beverages and malt (up 10 per cent to $1334 million).

Processed (substantially and elaborately transformed) foods make up 95 per cent of the total value of food imports." That's cans and all things that come sealed.

We import most of our food from New Zealand - heaps of wine and cheese. Michael is right. We do import food - it's a key part of our reciprocal trade relationship with NZ and the Asia Pacific region.

Food we got. More than enough for a doubling or tripling of our population before it declines in 2050.

I take your word on the statistics Cheryl, you use facts judging on your previous posts, however I wish to add that quality of our exports, along with growing our own produce, has declined as a result of 'significant' drought and pestilence. As outlined in your statistics, we pay dearly for the fruit and veg imports which, in my view, produce nothing short of a bitter foul and stale taste. The USA oranges give stomach cramps and are rotting within a day of hitting the major USA owned retail outlets and any green vegies are out of this world unrealistically priced/unaffordable for many families. Watch families waltz past them after looking at the prices.

Many parents I know would be feeding green vegies every night to their children; if it were not for the fact that most of our industries were stuffed up in terms of balance of trade [ten years ago] thanks to Minister Vaile. One need only ask ANY Aussie producer, starting with the Orange Growers of NSW.

There may be an abundance of food purchased outside this country, quality and costs of the produce are another story altogether, the first point being: how long are families able to 'nutritionally' feed their children [the next generation] on expensive vegetables meat and imported canned products [containing who knows what]?

I am growing ours this year again, hopefully producing knock out size potatoes, pumpkins, broccoli, spinach, carrots and brussel sprouts [if disease or pests dont ruin them].

cheryl

You obviously did not read the article so where is the 'food we got', we import food and fish (even your caviar) we are not self sufficient anymore and our imports will depend on sources continuing to supply our needs (with their increasing population)and that there will be ships to bring them (peak oil).
You must be a PAP (Populate And Perish) supporter.

Food trade
Australia has a worldwide reputation for producing superior quality, premium food. Australian food producers are committed to providing the highest international standards of quality management and food safety.

The value of Australian food exports declined by around 3 per cent in 2006–07 to $23.3 billion compared with the previous year. Food exports reached a peak of $30.8 billion (2006–07 dollars) in 2001–02 and have been declining since, largely due to drought and changes in import demand from overseas markets. [DFAT and DAFF].

This is an archaic extract, yet illustrates the fact that our balance of trade in relation to food produce since 1998 has continued to decline. We are in the 'red' regarding our overall balance of trade:[food/produce, merchandise, minerals and resources]

Can we feed a 'Big Australia'?

Looking at the levels of obesities in Australia I would say we have plenty of cutting back to do before we get to concerned. We cull many roos which could easily feed many more people if needed. It seems that the money these days is in making catastrophic predictions. Usually they are made far enough in the advance so they can never be held accountable (except for the likes of Flannery and Gore) who have been made to look foolish. This is just another one of a long line of articles that use pseudo science and computer models to reach the conclusion that supports a political cause.

Michael, Thanks for a very thorough and interesting article.

Cheryl,

You have not challenged Michael's sources or analysis. He is concerned that we might not be able to see even 70% more people through a long, severe drought, even without considering peak oil, peak phosphate, climate change, etc. You say we can triple the population. I don't see how this would be possible, even if we took meat, fish, and dairy products off the tables of the working classes and forced them to eat the sorghum and other coarse grains directly. Please explain.

Curmudgeon,

It is true that climate is not perfectly understood, but when people who have passed stiff examinations in math, physics, and chemistry, and have been studying climate all the time, possibly for decades, say that climate change might well reduce our water supplies, I am inclined to take them very seriously. What do you have against reasonable safety margins?

Runner,

Do the numbers, as Michael has.

Look at what is possible and leave the rest to God. With the advent of Globalization we are closing down food production all over the globe. As a former farmer I know without a shadow of doubt when the farmers are paid to produce food they are amongst most productive people on the planet but with globalism manipulating the price production is dramasticly reduced. Only when large scale starvation deaths occure will the west learn that the failed socialist model does not work and leads to unnessecary suffering and death. Stalin starved between 7 & 11 million people to death in 1933 in the Ukraine in 1933 while the rats ate their way through a record grain harvest. The problem does not lie in production of food but in the wickedness of mans heart.

We need to stabilize Australia's population now, and deal with the short-term problems this will bring. Unfortunately our economy is designed around perpetual population growth, so we'll keep growing until we are forced to stop - and the problems we will face then will be much greater.

Michael,
Your conclusion that we can't produce enough fruit and vegetables presently or in the future is incorrect. The reason why the figures show imports exceeded exports is because of Australia's import tariff reduction ONLY. You derive a whole lot of nonsense by reading the Governments figures how they want you to read them (you are not alone). I know personally many farmers who have good land and plenty of water in areas historically proven for the prolific vegetable and fruit production with the rug taken from underneath their feet by our national policies, they now struggle whilst we eat un-regulated production from all corners of the globe. Please make yoursef aware of what is actualy happening. Regards.

Hi Dinny and others,

You may be unsurprised to know that I would be very, very happy to be proven wrong on the food sufficiency side. Yes, if proper tariffs were in place we probably could supply ourselves (and maybe even twice our current population) with fruit and veg under current climate, energy and fertlizer availability conditions. However, go to the original version of the article (with all the graphs) at the Energy Bulletin:

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/52706

and take a look at the phosphate projection! In the future it will be much more difficult to produce food than in the past. Oil and phosphate decline require a completely different societal arrangement for food production. The main effort must be to keep population as low as possible now so that, when our food production goes into decline, we have a margin to fall back on to give us time to adjust.

Best regards,

Michael

Great article Michael,
It takes a lot of energy to produce food. We will need to start a
change to a different energy source on our farms eventually.
Ultimately we will rely on horse power, but that is a long way off,
In the meantime agriculture will get priority for fuel.
However farming must change to locally grown and sold food.
This will overcome Dinny's worries.

We simply cannot afford to squander energy on building houses and
infrastructure for another 25 million people. It is just not on.

Phosphate is an urgent problem now.
In Sweden they have designed a toilet pan to capture urine with the
intention to extract the phosphorous.
Without phosphorous we all die.

There are many reasons why the population will not increase to the
extent that the government proposes, most of them related to energy.
This presupposes that China and Indonesia do not fight over occupation
rights to Australia.
Errr I am joking, err am I ?

Only one problem Bazz with locally grown food - only 6% of Australia is arable country. Locally grown food will not feed this rapidly expanding population.

Well nosg, as most of the population centres were established because
of the arable land available the transport will not be too great a problem.

Example, Sydney was able to grow because there was arable land available.
True, it has been built on, but there is still good land outside the
Sydney area.
As we will have electric trains they will serve to bring the
market garden produce to the cities and towns as they did before
trucks were so common. We will need to use coal fired power stations
to power them, unless we build nuclear power stations.
Transport will be needed in country areas to ship grain products to
the cities which is why the state governments should rebuild the
country branch lines that were abandoned to road transport.
Again politicians will only respond when we no longer have the energy
needed to rebuild the rail network.
Anyone in the trucking business should seriously look at getting out
over the next few years.
Even local use around cities will be difficult and expensive.