site map

Table of wealth distribution and food security

This table illustrates wealth differences between countries and within countries. It also shows shows the ability of those countries to feed themselves.

advertising
disclaimer

wealth distribution and food security data

percentage agriculturally useful land

290

percentage agriculturally useful land

Definition: For the column, ‘agricultural useful land’ , I have taken the CIA definition for arable land, that is, land cultivated for crops that are replanted after each harvest like wheat, maize, and rice.

The CIA separately defines permanent cropland as land cultivated for crops that are not replanted after each harvest like citrus, coffee, and rubber; includes land under flowering shrubs, fruit trees, nut trees, and vines, but excludes land under trees grown for wood or timber.

I have done this because my intention is to have some approximation for the potential food self-sufficiency of the various countries listed. In third-world countries, a great deal of the category defined as permanent crops is production for export and for foreign exchange. Generally, the profits end up in the bank accounts of local agent kleptocracies and their Western corporate paymasters; and, of course, the cheap, luxury items are sold in advanced countries, to the detriment of the local poor.

My concern, at this point, is not any ‘moral’ judgement as to whether this is good, bad or neutral (in the present state of the world, my inclination is to regard it as the way of the world and fairly neutral). However, I bring this to your attention in order that you may think clearly about these matters for yourself. You might, for example, decide that you would rather seek out, and add in, the permanent crop figures; or again, you might imagine that increased land could be brought under cultivation by the application of ever-advancing, agricultural technology. You might think that trading crops for Western technology might, in the longer run, raise the general standard of life in backward countries. You might wonder about the strategic importance of food security, especially for some Western countries. Not one of these is an easy, or settled, question.

It has been said that trade is like a magic wand, capable of transforming food
into aeroplanes, or haircuts, into holidays in Ibiza.

Electricity usage and derivation

1

fossil
[GWeq]

2

hydro
[GWeq]

3

nuclear
[GWeq]

4

wind
[GWeq]

Data source, columns 5, 6, 7: BP Statistical Review. Col 8: various.
Column 2: BP figures for primary energy consumption x 1.37 conversion factor

subsidary sources: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/nshare.htm
http://www.enerdata.fr/enerdata_UK/Produits/exemples/conso.pdf (total energy use)
Column 4 derived from http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/contents.html
                                         (electricity generation and consumption tables)

**It is easy to confuse the figures in columns 2, 3 and 4. Much electricity generation is done using fossil fuels. Fossil fuel electricity generation is about 38% efficient, and electricity is the end-use form of power used by consumers.

Column 2 represents the total input-energy usage by a country. For every unit of fossil fuel, or other energy source, that is consumed by a country in electrical generation, only 38% of that unit will end up as usable end-user energy. When referring to alternative energy, the inputs are notional and based upon this 38% efficiency figure. In other words, for example, a given quantity of electricity produced by nuclear power generation will be deemed to have taken the same amount of fossil fuel energy as if it had been generated using fossil fuels.

The figure of 38% is a crude average, as used by BP. While similar efficiency losses will be involved in non-fossil fuel electricity generation, these losses may not show up clearly, as only the end-use electrical energy will appear in the relevant columns.

In column 4, the percentage is the delivered end-user energy, as a percentage of column 2 (the energy input to the country). It can also be read as the degree of electrification of that country.

End-user energy is difficult to define and to understand.

• Is the energy going into the power station to be regarded as the end-user of the energy coming into the country?
• Or is the end-user to be considered the person who swithches on a light at home?
• What of the person who switches on a light in a factory? Is the factory the end-user, or is it the person or company who purchases the manufacturer’s goods?
• What of recycled waste, used to produce further energy?
• What of the hairdressing salon that blow-dies your hair? Is it different if you do this job at home?

These are the questions asked by added-value taxmen, or governments ‘adjusting’ their GNP fictions.

Neither am I going to attend to the various energy losses inevitable in the production process.

I have no intention of plumbing this sort of complexity, my purpose being to show the broad outlines of energy production and usage without unnecessary confusion.

Thus, my definition of end-user energy is related directly
to the energy inputs of the country.

The percentages in the remaining columns relate to the relative amounts of electricity generated by various means in a country. The percentages in the left part of the table have no bearing on the percentages in the right part of the table.

[solar reflection difficulties http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/07/Carbonemissions.shtml]

Sustainable Transport
Note: idealistic, but useful, reference document (lead source: Lavigne)

tide power again
sloppy remarks from the Groaniad

World coal resources (at end 2001)

Data source, columns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7: BP Statistical Review

1 tonne oil = 1.5 tonnes ‘hard’ coal / 3.5 tonnes lignite

There are claims from the coal industry that it is possible to use coal such that there is lower resulting pollution.

World oil resources (at the end of 2004)

1.53%

0.90%

1. USBC (2001).
2. This is the equivalent land area required to produce 3 metric tons per hectare, plus the energy required for harvesting and transport.
3. Total area based on an average of 75,000 hectares per reservoir area per 1 billion kilowatt-hours per year produced.
4. Pimentel et al. (1994).

Source:
Renewable Energy: Current and Potential Issues
David Pimentel, Megan Herz , Michele Glickstein, Mathew Z Immerman, Richard Allen, Katrina Becker, Jeff Evans, Benita Hussain, Ryan Sarsfeld, Anat Grosfeld, And Thomas Seidel in BioScience, December 2002 / Vol. 52 No. 12 1111-1120

related material
David Pimentel on the limitations of biofuels

end notes

1. A million hectares = 10,000 square kilometres
   100 hectares = 1 sq. km
   
   The area of the United States of America is 916,192,300 hectares [9,161,923 sq.km].
   Approximately 20% of this land is rated as agriculturally useful. As you will see from the table, meeting energy needs from biofuel land usage is no done deal, or as Pimentel puts it,
   “The authors suggest that cellulosic ethanol sources can provide 30% of U.S. current petroleum consumption. The report advocates using 1.3 billion tons of cellulosic biomass. They are suggesting using nearly 66% of all forests, all agricultural crops, and all grasses each year to produce this cellulosic ethanol. Literally the U.S. would be stripped of its vegetation. The result would be that soil erosion would intensify, water runoff would increase, and global warming would increase.”
   
   The State of Connecticut has an area of 1,435,400 ha. [14,357 sq.km].
   The area of Delaware is 644,470 ha. [6,447 sq.km].
   Texas has an area of 69,562,100 ha. [695,621sq.km].
   The area of California is 42,397,000 ha. [423,970 sq. km].

email email_abelard [at] abelard.org

© abelard, 2003, 7 february


all rights reserved

the address for this document is https://www.abelard.org/briefings/tables.htm

... words
prints as 1 A4 pages (on my printer and set-up)