Note: The most frightening article FTW has ever
published is now a free story for all to read.
Our paid subscribers read it last October. As Peak
Oil and its effects become a raging national controversy
it's time everyone reads the story that puts the
most serious implications of Peak Oil and Gas into
perspective. Your biggest problem is not that your
SUV might go hungry, it's that you and your children
might go hungry. What has been documented here
is no secret to US and foreign policy makers as
China experiences grain shortages this year and,
as CNN's Lou Dobbs recently reported, the US and
Canada will soon no longer be the world's breadbasket.
- MCR ]
2004, From The Wilderness Publications, www.copvcia.com.
All Rights Reserved. May be reprinted, distributed
or posted on an Internet web site for non-profit
[Some months ago, concerned by a Paris
statement made by Professor Kenneth Deffeyes of
Princeton regarding his concern about the impact
of Peak Oil and Gas on fertilizer production, I
tasked FTW's Contributing Editor
for Energy, Dale Allen Pfeiffer to start looking
into what natural gas shortages would do to fertilizer
production costs. His investigation led him to
look at the totality of food production in the
US. Because the US and Canada feed much of the
world, the answers have global implications.
What follows is most certainly the
single most frightening article I have ever read
and certainly the most alarming piece that FTW has
ever published. Even as we have seen CNN, Britain's
Independent and Jane's Defence Weekly acknowledge
the reality of Peak Oil and Gas within the last
week, acknowledging that world oil and gas reserves
are as much as 80% less than predicted, we are
also seeing how little real thinking has been devoted
to the host of crises certain to follow; at least
in terms of publicly accessible thinking.
The following article is so serious
in its implications that I have taken the unusual
step of underlining some of its key findings. I
did that with the intent that the reader treat
each underlined passage as a separate and incredibly
important fact. Each one of these facts should
be read and digested separately to assimilate its
importance. I found myself reading one fact and
then getting up and walking away until I could
come back and (un)comfortably read to the next.
All told, Dale Allen Pfeiffer's research
and reporting confirms the worst of FTW's
suspicions about the consequences of Peak Oil,
and it poses serious questions about what to do
next. Not the least of these is why, in a presidential
election year, none of the candidates has even
acknowledged the problem. Thus far, it is clear
that solutions for these questions, perhaps the
most important ones facing mankind, will by necessity
be found by private individuals and communities,
independently of outside or governmental help.
Whether the real search for answers comes now,
or as the crisis becomes unavoidable, depends solely
on us. – MCR]
October 3 , 2003, 1200 PDT, (FTW) -- Human
beings (like all other animals) draw their energy
from the food they eat. Until the last century, all
of the food energy available on this planet was derived
from the sun through photosynthesis. Either you ate
plants or you ate animals that fed on plants, but
the energy in your food was ultimately derived from
It would have been absurd to think that we would one day run out of sunshine.
No, sunshine was an abundant, renewable resource,
and the process of photosynthesis fed all life on
this planet. It also set a limit on the amount of
food that could be generated at any one time, and
therefore placed a limit upon population growth.
Solar energy has a limited rate of flow into this
planet. To increase your food production, you had
to increase the acreage under cultivation, and displace
your competitors. There was no other way to increase
the amount of energy available for food production.
Human population grew by displacing everything else
and appropriating more and more of the available
The need to expand agricultural production was one of the motive causes behind
most of the wars in recorded history, along with
expansion of the energy base (and agricultural production
is truly an essential portion of the energy base).
And when Europeans could no longer expand cultivation,
they began the task of conquering the world. Explorers
were followed by conquistadors and traders and settlers.
The declared reasons for expansion may have been
trade, avarice, empire or simply curiosity, but at
its base, it was all about the expansion of agricultural
productivity. Wherever explorers and conquistadors
traveled, they may have carried off loot, but they
left plantations. And settlers toiled to clear land
and establish their own homestead. This conquest
and expansion went on until there was no place left
for further expansion. Certainly, to this day, landowners
and farmers fight to claim still more land for agricultural
productivity, but they are fighting over crumbs.
Today, virtually all of the productive land on this
planet is being exploited by agriculture. What remains
unused is too steep, too wet, too dry or lacking
in soil nutrients.1
Just when agricultural output could expand no more by increasing acreage, new
innovations made possible a more thorough exploitation
of the acreage already available. The process of “pest” displacement
and appropriation for agriculture accelerated with
the industrial revolution as the mechanization of
agriculture hastened the clearing and tilling of
land and augmented the amount of farmland which could
be tended by one person. With every increase in food
production, the human population grew apace.
At present, nearly 40% of all land-based photosynthetic capability has been
appropriated by human beings.2 In the
United States we divert more than half of the energy
captured by photosynthesis.3 We have
taken over all the prime real estate on this planet.
The rest of nature is forced to make due with what
is left. Plainly, this is one of the major factors
in species extinctions and in ecosystem stress.
The Green Revolution
In the 1950s and 1960s, agriculture underwent a drastic transformation commonly
referred to as the Green Revolution. The Green Revolution
resulted in the industrialization of agriculture.
Part of the advance resulted from new hybrid food
plants, leading to more productive food crops. Between
1950 and 1984, as the Green Revolution transformed
agriculture around the globe, world grain production
increased by 250%.4 That is a tremendous
increase in the amount of food energy available for
human consumption. This additional energy did not
come from an increase in incipient sunlight, nor
did it result from introducing agriculture to new
vistas of land. The energy for the Green Revolution
was provided by fossil fuels in the form of fertilizers
(natural gas), pesticides (oil), and hydrocarbon
The Green Revolution increased the energy flow to agriculture by an average
of 50 times the energy input of traditional agriculture.5 In
the most extreme cases, energy consumption by agriculture
has increased 100 fold or more.6
In the United States, 400 gallons of oil equivalents are expended annually to
feed each American (as of data provided in 1994).7 Agricultural energy consumption is broken down as follows:
31% for the manufacture of inorganic fertilizer
19% for the operation of field machinery
16% for transportation
13% for irrigation
08% for raising livestock (not including livestock
05% for crop drying
05% for pesticide production
Energy costs for packaging, refrigeration, transportation to retail outlets,
and household cooking are not considered in these
To give the reader an idea of the energy intensiveness of modern agriculture,
production of one kilogram of nitrogen for fertilizer
requires the energy equivalent of from 1.4 to 1.8
liters of diesel fuel. This
is not considering the natural gas feedstock.9 According
to The Fertilizer Institute (http://www.tfi.org),
in the year from June 30 2001 until June 30 2002
the United States used 12,009,300 short tons of
nitrogen fertilizer.10 Using the
low figure of 1.4 liters diesel equivalent per
kilogram of nitrogen, this equates to the energy
content of 15.3 billion liters of diesel fuel,
or 96.2 million barrels.
Of course, this is only a rough
comparison to aid comprehension of the energy requirements
for modern agriculture.
In a very real sense, we are literally eating fossil fuels. However, due to
the laws of thermodynamics, there is not a direct
correspondence between energy inflow and outflow
in agriculture. Along the way, there is a marked
energy loss. Between 1945 and 1994, energy input
to agriculture increased 4-fold while crop yields
only increased 3-fold.11 Since then,
energy input has continued to increase without
a corresponding increase in crop yield. We have
reached the point of marginal returns. Yet, due to soil degradation, increased demands of pest management and increasing
energy costs for irrigation (all of which is examined
below), modern agriculture must continue increasing
its energy expenditures simply to maintain current
crop yields. The Green Revolution is becoming
Fossil Fuel Costs
Solar energy is a renewable resource limited only by the inflow rate from the
sun to the earth. Fossil fuels, on the other hand,
are a stock-type resource that can be exploited at
a nearly limitless rate. However, on a human timescale,
fossil fuels are nonrenewable. They represent a planetary
energy deposit which we can draw from at any rate
we wish, but which will eventually be exhausted without
renewal. The Green Revolution tapped into this energy
deposit and used it to increase agricultural production.
Total fossil fuel use in the United States has increased 20-fold in the last
4 decades. In the US, we consume 20 to 30 times
more fossil fuel energy per capita than people
in developing nations. Agriculture directly
accounts for 17% of all the energy used in this
country.12 As of 1990, we were using
approximately 1,000 liters (6.41 barrels) of oil
to produce food of one hectare of land.13
In 1994, David Pimentel and Mario Giampietro estimated the output/input ratio
of agriculture to be around 1.4.14 For
0.7 Kilogram-Calories (kcal) of fossil energy consumed,
U.S. agriculture produced 1 kcal of food. The input
figure for this ratio was based on FAO (Food and
Agriculture Organization of the UN) statistics, which
consider only fertilizers (without including fertilizer
feedstock), irrigation, pesticides (without
including pesticide feedstock), and machinery
and fuel for field operations. Other agricultural
energy inputs not considered were energy and machinery
for drying crops, transportation for inputs and outputs
to and from the farm, electricity, and construction
and maintenance of farm buildings and infrastructures. Adding
in estimates for these energy costs brought the input/output
energy ratio down to 1.15 Yet this
does not include the energy expense of packaging,
delivery to retail outlets, refrigeration or household
In a subsequent study completed later that same year (1994), Giampietro and
Pimentel managed to derive a more accurate ratio
of the net fossil fuel energy ratio of agriculture.16 In
this study, the authors defined two separate forms
of energy input: Endosomatic energy and Exosomatic
energy. Endosomatic energy is generated through the
metabolic transformation of food energy into muscle
energy in the human body. Exosomatic energy is generated
by transforming energy outside of the human body,
such as burning gasoline in a tractor. This assessment
allowed the authors to look at fossil fuel input
alone and in ratio to other inputs.
Prior to the industrial revolution, virtually 100% of both endosomatic and exosomatic
energy was solar driven. Fossil fuels now represent
90% of the exosomatic energy used in the United States
and other developed countries.17 The typical
exo/endo ratio of pre-industrial, solar powered societies
is about 4 to 1. The ratio has changed tenfold in
developed countries, climbing to 40 to 1. And in
the United States it is more than 90 to 1.18 The
nature of the way we use endosomatic energy has changed
The vast majority of endosomatic energy is no longer expended to deliver power
for direct economic processes. Now the majority of
endosomatic energy is utilized to generate the flow
of information directing the flow of exosomatic energy
driving machines. Considering the 90/1 exo/endo ratio
in the United States, each endosomatic kcal of energy
expended in the US induces the circulation of 90
kcal of exosomatic energy. As an example, a small
gasoline engine can convert the 38,000 kcal in one
gallon of gasoline into 8.8 KWh (Kilowatt hours),
which equates to about 3 weeks of work for one human
In their refined study, Giampietro and Pimentel found that 10 kcal of exosomatic
energy are required to produce 1 kcal of food delivered
to the consumer in the U.S. food system. This includes
packaging and all delivery expenses, but excludes
household cooking).20 The U.S. food
system consumes ten times more energy than it produces
in food energy. This disparity is made possible
by nonrenewable fossil fuel stocks.
Assuming a figure of 2,500 kcal per capita for the daily diet in the United
States, the 10/1 ratio translates into a cost of
35,000 kcal of exosomatic energy per capita each
day. However, considering that the average return
on one hour of endosomatic labor in the U.S. is about
100,000 kcal of exosomatic energy, the flow of exosomatic
energy required to supply the daily diet is achieved
in only 20 minutes of labor in our current system.
Unfortunately, if you remove fossil fuels from the
equation, the daily diet will require 111 hours of
endosomatic labor per capita; that is, the
current U.S. daily diet would require nearly three
weeks of labor per capita to produce.
Quite plainly, as fossil fuel production begins to decline within the next decade,
there will be less energy available for the production
Soil, Cropland and Water
Modern intensive agriculture is unsustainable. Technologically-enhanced agriculture
has augmented soil erosion, polluted and overdrawn
groundwater and surface water, and even (largely
due to increased pesticide use) caused serious public
health and environmental problems. Soil erosion,
overtaxed cropland and water resource overdraft in
turn lead to even greater use of fossil fuels and
hydrocarbon products. More hydrocarbon-based fertilizers
must be applied, along with more pesticides; irrigation
water requires more energy to pump; and fossil fuels
are used to process polluted water.
It takes 500 years to replace 1 inch of topsoil.21 In a natural environment,
topsoil is built up by decaying plant matter and
weathering rock, and it is protected from erosion
by growing plants. In soil made susceptible by agriculture,
erosion is reducing productivity up to 65% each year.22 Former
prairie lands, which constitute the bread basket
of the United States, have lost one half of their
topsoil after farming for about 100 years. This soil
is eroding 30 times faster than the natural formation
rate.23 Food crops are much hungrier
than the natural grasses that once covered the Great
Plains. As a result, the remaining topsoil is increasingly
depleted of nutrients. Soil erosion and mineral depletion
removes about $20 billion worth of plant nutrients
from U.S. agricultural soils every year.24 Much
of the soil in the Great Plains is little more than
a sponge into which we must pour hydrocarbon-based
fertilizers in order to produce crops.
Every year in the U.S., more than 2 million acres of cropland are lost to erosion,
salinization and water logging. On top of this, urbanization,
road building, and industry claim another 1 million
acres annually from farmland.24 Approximately
three-quarters of the land area in the United States
is devoted to agriculture and commercial forestry.25 The
expanding human population is putting increasing
pressure on land availability. Incidentally,
only a small portion of U.S. land area remains available
for the solar energy technologies necessary to support
a solar energy-based economy. The land area for harvesting
biomass is likewise limited. For this reason, the
development of solar energy or biomass must be at
the expense of agriculture.
Modern agriculture also places a strain on our water resources. Agriculture
consumes fully 85% of all U.S. freshwater resources.26 Overdraft is occurring from many surface water resources, especially
in the west and south. The typical example is the
Colorado River, which is diverted to a trickle
by the time it reaches the Pacific. Yet surface
water only supplies 60% of the water used in irrigation.
The remainder, and in some places the majority
of water for irrigation, comes from ground water
aquifers. Ground water is recharged slowly by the
percolation of rainwater through the earth's crust.
Less than 0.1% of the stored ground water mined
annually is replaced by rainfall.27 The
great Ogallala aquifer that supplies agriculture,
industry and home use in much of the southern and
central plains states has an annual overdraft up
to 160% above its recharge rate. The Ogallala aquifer
will become unproductive in a matter of decades.28
We can illustrate the demand that modern agriculture places on water resources
by looking at a farmland producing corn. A corn crop
that produces 118 bushels/acre/year requires more
than 500,000 gallons/acre of water during the growing
season. The production of 1 pound of maize requires
1,400 pounds (or 175 gallons) of water.29 Unless
something is done to lower these consumption rates, modern
agriculture will help to propel the United States
into a water crisis.
In the last two decades, the use of hydrocarbon-based pesticides in the U.S.
has increased 33-fold, yet each year we lose more
crops to pests.30 This is the result of the abandonment of traditional crop rotation practices. Nearly
50% of U.S. corn land is grown continuously as
a monoculture.31 This results in an
increase in corn pests, which in turn requires
the use of more pesticides. Pesticide use on corn
crops had increased 1,000-fold even before the
introduction of genetically engineered, pesticide
resistant corn. However, corn losses have still
Modern intensive agriculture is unsustainable. It is damaging the land, draining
water supplies and polluting the environment. And
all of this requires more and more fossil fuel
input to pump irrigation water, to replace nutrients,
to provide pest protection, to remediate the environment
and simply to hold crop production at a constant.
Yet this necessary fossil fuel input is going to
crash headlong into declining fossil fuel production.
In the United States, each person consumes an average of 2,175 pounds of food
per person per year. This provides the U.S. consumer
with an average daily energy intake of 3,600 Calories.
The world average is 2,700 Calories per day.33 Fully
19% of the U.S. caloric intake comes from fast food.
Fast food accounts for 34% of the total food consumption
for the average U.S. citizen. The average citizen
dines out for one meal out of four.34
One third of the caloric intake of the average American comes from animal sources
(including dairy products), totaling 800 pounds per
person per year. This diet means that U.S. citizens
derive 40% of their calories from fat-nearly half
of their diet. 35
Americans are also grand consumers of water. As of one decade ago, Americans
were consuming 1,450 gallons/day/capita (g/d/c),
with the largest amount expended on agriculture.
Allowing for projected population increase, consumption
by 2050 is projected at 700 g/d/c, which hydrologists
consider to be minimal for human needs.36 This
is without taking into consideration declining
fossil fuel production.
To provide all of this food requires the application of 0.6 million metric tons
of pesticides in North America per year. This is
over one fifth of the total annual world pesticide
use, estimated at 2.5 million tons.37 Worldwide,
more nitrogen fertilizer is used per year than can
be supplied through natural sources. Likewise,
water is pumped out of underground aquifers at a
much higher rate than it is recharged. And stocks
of important minerals, such as phosphorus and potassium,
are quickly approaching exhaustion.38
Total U.S. energy consumption is more than three times the amount of solar energy
harvested as crop and forest products. The United
States consumes 40% more energy annually than the
total amount of solar energy captured yearly by all
U.S. plant biomass. Per capita use of fossil energy
in North America is five times the world average.39
Our prosperity is built on the principal of exhausting the world's resources
as quickly as possible, without any thought to our
neighbors, all the other life on this planet, or
Population & Sustainability
Considering a growth rate of 1.1% per year, the U.S. population is projected
to double by 2050. As the population
expands, an estimated one acre of land will be
lost for every person added to the U.S. population. Currently,
there are 1.8 acres of farmland available to grow
food for each U.S. citizen. By 2050, this will
decrease to 0.6 acres. 1.2 acres per person
is required in order to maintain current dietary
Presently, only two nations on the planet are major exporters of grain: the
United States and Canada.41 By 2025,
it is expected that the U.S. will cease to be a
food exporter due to domestic demand. The impact
on the U.S. economy could be devastating, as food
exports earn $40 billion for the U.S. annually.
More importantly, millions of people around the
world could starve to death without U.S. food exports.42
Domestically, 34.6 million people are living in poverty as of 2002 census data.43 And
this number is continuing to grow at an alarming
rate. Too many of these people do not have a sufficient
diet. As the situation worsens, this number will
increase and the United States will witness growing
numbers of starvation fatalities.
There are some things that we can do to at least alleviate this tragedy. It
is suggested that streamlining agriculture to get
rid of losses, waste and mismanagement might cut
the energy inputs for food production by up to one-half.35 In
place of fossil fuel-based fertilizers, we could
utilize livestock manures that are now wasted. It
is estimated that livestock manures contain 5 times
the amount of fertilizer currently used each year.36 Perhaps
most effective would be to eliminate meat from our
Mario Giampietro and David Pimentel postulate that a sustainable food system
is possible only if four conditions are met:
1. Environmentally sound agricultural
technologies must be implemented.
2. Renewable energy technologies must
be put into place.
3. Major increases in energy efficiency
must reduce exosomatic energy consumption per capita.
4. Population size and consumption must
be compatible with maintaining the stability of environmental
Providing that the first three conditions are met, with a reduction to less
than half of the exosomatic energy consumption per
capita, the authors place the maximum population
for a sustainable economy at 200 million.39 Several
other studies have produced figures within this ballpark
(Energy and Population, Werbos, Paul J. http://www.dieoff.com/page63.htm; Impact
of Population Growth on Food Supplies and Environment, Pimentel,
David, et al. http://www.dieoff.com/page57.htm).
Given that the current U.S. population is in excess of 292 million, 40 that
would mean a reduction of 92 million. To achieve
a sustainable economy and avert disaster, the United
States must reduce its population by at least one-third. The
black plague during the 14th Century claimed
approximately one-third of the European population
(and more than half of the Asian and Indian populations),
plunging the continent into a darkness from which
it took them nearly two centuries to emerge.41
None of this research considers the impact of declining fossil fuel production.
The authors of all of these studies believe that
the mentioned agricultural crisis will only begin
to impact us after 2020, and will not become critical
until 2050. The current peaking of global oil
production (and subsequent decline of production),
along with the peak of North American natural gas
production will very likely precipitate this agricultural
crisis much sooner than expected. Quite possibly,
a U.S. population reduction of one-third will not
be effective for sustainability; the necessary reduction
might be in excess of one-half. And, for sustainability,
global population will have to be reduced from the
current 6.32 billion people42 to 2 billion-a
reduction of 68% or over two-thirds. The end of this
decade could see spiraling food prices without relief.
And the coming decade could see massive starvation
on a global level such as never experienced before
by the human race.
Considering the utter necessity of population reduction, there are three obvious
choices awaiting us.
We can-as a society-become aware of our dilemma and consciously make the choice
not to add more people to our population. This would
be the most welcome of our three options, to choose
consciously and with free will to responsibly lower
our population. However, this flies in the face of
our biological imperative to procreate. It is further
complicated by the ability of modern medicine to
extend our longevity, and by the refusal of the Religious
Right to consider issues of population management.
And then, there is a strong business lobby to maintain
a high immigration rate in order to hold down the
cost of labor. Though this is probably our best choice,
it is the option least likely to be chosen.
Failing to responsibly lower our population, we can force population cuts through
government regulations. Is there any need to mention
how distasteful this option would be? How many of
us would choose to live in a world of forced sterilization
and population quotas enforced under penalty of law?
How easily might this lead to a culling of the population
utilizing principles of eugenics?
This leaves the third choice, which itself presents an unspeakable picture of
suffering and death. Should we fail to acknowledge
this coming crisis and determine to deal with it,
we will be faced with a die-off from which civilization
may very possibly never revive. We will very likely
lose more than the numbers necessary for sustainability.
Under a die-off scenario, conditions will deteriorate
so badly that the surviving human population would
be a negligible fraction of the present population.
And those survivors would suffer from the trauma
of living through the death of their civilization,
their neighbors, their friends and their families.
Those survivors will have seen their world crushed
The questions we must ask ourselves now are, how can we allow this to happen,
and what can we do to prevent it? Does our present
lifestyle mean so much to us that we would subject
ourselves and our children to this fast approaching
tragedy simply for a few more years of conspicuous
This is possibly the most important article I have written to date. It is certainly
the most frightening, and the conclusion is the bleakest
I have ever penned. This article is likely to greatly
disturb the reader; it has certainly disturbed me.
However, it is important for our future that this
paper should be read, acknowledged and discussed.
I am by nature positive and optimistic. In spite of this article, I continue
to believe that we can find a positive solution to
the multiple crises bearing down upon us. Though
this article may provoke a flood of hate mail, it
is simply a factual report of data and the obvious
conclusions that follow from it.
1 Availability of agricultural land for crop and livestock production,
Buringh, P. Food and Natural Resources, Pimentel.
D. and Hall. C.W. (eds), Academic Press, 1989.
2 Human appropriation of the products of photosynthesis, Vitousek, P.M.
et al. Bioscience 36, 1986. http://www.science.duq.edu/esm/unit2-3
3 Land, Energy and Water: the constraints governing Ideal US Population Size, Pimental,
David and Pimentel, Marcia. Focus, Spring
1991. NPG Forum, 1990. http://www.dieoff.com/page136.htm
4 Constraints on the Expansion of Global Food Supply, Kindell, Henry H.
and Pimentel, David. Ambio Vol. 23 No. 3, May 1994.
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. http://www.dieoff.com/page36htm
5 The Tightening Conflict: Population, Energy Use, and the Ecology of Agriculture, Giampietro,
Mario and Pimentel, David, 1994. http://www.dieoff.com/page69.htm
6 Op. Cit. See note 4.
7 Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy, Pimentel, David and Giampietro,
Mario. Carrying Capacity Network, 11/21/1994. http://www.dieoff.com/page55.htm
8 Comparison of energy inputs for inorganic fertilizer and manure based corn
production, McLaughlin, N.B., et al. Canadian
Agricultural Engineering, Vol. 42, No. 1, 2000.
10 US Fertilizer Use Statistics. http://www.tfi.org/Statistics/USfertuse2.asp
11 Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy, Executive Summary, Pimentel,
David and Giampietro, Mario. Carrying Capacity Network,
13 Op. Cit. See note 3.
14 Op. Cit. See note 7.
16 Op. Cit. See note 5.
21 Op. Cit. See note 11.
25 Op Cit. See note 3.
26 Op Cit. See note 11.
30 Op. Cit. See note 3.
31 Op. Cit. See note 5.
32 Op. Cit. See note 3.
33 Op. Cit. See note 11.
34 Food Consumption and Access, Lynn Brantley, et al. Capital Area Food
Bank, 6/1/2001. http://www.clagettfarm.org/purchasing.html
35 Op. Cit. See note 11.
37 Op. Cit. See note 5.
40 Op. Cit. See note 11.
41 Op. Cit. See note 4.
42 Op. Cit. See note 11.
43 Poverty 2002. The U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty02/pov02hi.html
35 Op. Cit. See note 3.
37 Diet for a Small Planet, Lappé, Frances Moore. Ballantine Books,
1971-revised 1991. http://www.dietforasmallplanet.com/
38 Op. Cit. See note 5.
40 U.S. and World Population Clocks. U.S.
Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
41 A Distant Mirror, Tuckman Barbara. Ballantine Books, 1978.
42 Op. Cit. See note 40.
Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies
By Richard Heinberg