Multi-year Expert Meeting on Commodities

Palais des Nations, Geneva 24-25 March 2010

Sustainable agriculture and the green energy economy - paper

by

Ms. Mae-Wan Ho, Director The Institute of Science in Society, UK

"The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of UNCTAD"

1

Sustainable Agriculture & Green Energy Economy Food and energy security look increasing precarious with dwindling oil and water reserves, and global warming set to slash agricultural productivity; all we need to exit the crisis is a decisive shift to sustainable agriculture and the green energy economy Dr. Mae-Wan Ho Paper presented at Multi-year Expert Meeting on Commodities and Development Item 4” Review and identify opportunities for the diversification of the energy matrix, including renewable energies, while being aware of countries’ needs to ensure a proper balance between food security and energy concerns (Accra Accord, paras 91 and 98) , 24-25 March 2010, UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development), Geneva World food crisis worsens At the end of 2009, over one billion of the world’s population are critically hungry, with 24 000 dying of hunger each day, more than half of them children. The United Nations Food Programme released these grim figures [1, 2] as it faces a budget shortfall of US$4.1 billion. Food prices have remained high despite the economic downturn, and extreme weather patterns affecting production are causing more hunger. An estimated 150 million was added to the hungry in 2008 alone; and worse is predicted for 2010 [3]. Current food system collapsing Our agriculture and food system has been showing signs of collapse [4], with world grain yields falling most years since 2000, and reserves at their lowest in 50 years [5]. In too many major croplands of the world, industrial farming practices have severely depleted underground water, dried out rivers and lakes, eroded topsoil, and decimated wild life with fertilizers and pesticides run-offs. Most alarming is the recent disappearance of bees and other pollinators (see [6] Mystery of Disappearing Honeybees and other articles in the series, SiS 44).

At the same time, world oil production has passed its peak [7] Oil Running Out (SiS 25) with the peak of natural gas not far behind [8]. Conventional industrial agriculture is heavily dependent on fossil fuels as well as water. In addition, climate change has emerged as a major threat to agricultural productivity. Direct field monitoring showed that crop yields fell 10 percent for each ˚C rise in night-time temperature during the growing season [9]. The International Food Policy Research Institute predicts that wheat yields in developing countries will drop 30 percent by 2050, while irrigated rice yields will drop 15 percent [10]. Climate change may hit the developing world harder, but the developed world is not immune. Increasing frequencies of drought, flood, and storm associated with climate change will devastate crops and livestock, and spells of extreme heat are also damaging as plants will start to deteriorate at about 32 ˚C. The yields of corn, soybeans and cotton could fall by 30 to 46 percent under the slowest warming scenario, or 63 to 82 percent under the fastest warming scenario. Scramble for biofuels and land grab What precipitated the global food crisis was the scramble for biofuels by developed nations in response to peak oil and climate change, on the mistaken belief that fuels made from plants are ‘carbon neutral’, so that burning them would simply release the carbon dioxide fixed by photosynthesis and would not increase greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

2

The European Union set a target for 10 percent of its transport to depend on biofuels by 2020 [11] (Europe Unveils 2020 Plan for Reducing C Emissions, SiS 37). For his part, George W. Bush, proposed to cure the US’ “addiction to oil”, by increasing federal budget 22 percent for research into clean fuel technologies including biofuels to substitutes for oil to power the country’s cars [12] (Biofuels for Oil Addicts, SiS 30). The hope is that by working out how to make ethanol from wood chips, stalks, the ‘cellulosic ethanol’ would replace more than 70 percent of oil imports from “unstable parts of the world” - the Middle East - by 2025.

The US imported 19.5 million barrels of petroleum a day in 2008, which made up 57 percent of its total consumption [13]. Meanwhile, huge and increasing amounts of corn in the US have been diverted to make heavily subsidized and environmentally unsustainable ethanol. In 2008, 9 billion gallons of ethanol were produced from 33 percent of the corn harvest subsidized at US$ 6-7 billion to supply just 1.3 percent of the country’s oil consumption. It takes 1 700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol [14]. Even if all 341 Mt of corn in the US were to be converted into ethanol, it would provide only 5 percent of the total oil consumption in the country, leaving nothing for livestock feed or food [15].

The US is a major exporter of corn accounting for over 60 percent of the world’s export. The jump in corn ethanol production triggered a price hike on grains that precipitated the world food crisis [16, 17] (Food Without Fossil Fuels Now, SiS 42)

Globally, the scramble for ethanol from corn and sugarcane and biodiesel from soybean, oilseeds, oil palm and jatropha resulted in accelerated deforestation (with large CO2 emissions), forced evictions of landless peasants and “land grab” in Africa and elsewhere. Tens of millions of hectares of supposedly ‘spare land’ are being bought or long-leased by companies from rich countries, not just for biofuels, but to grow food for export to their own countries [18].

Leading the land rush are international agribusinesses, investment banks, hedge funds, commodity traders, sovereign wealth funds as well as UK pension funds, foundations and individuals. They are homing in on some of the world's cheapest land, in Sudan, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, Malawi, Ethiopia, Congo, Zambia, Uganda, Madagascar, Zimbabwe, Mali, Sierra Leone, Ghana and elsewhere. Ethiopia alone has approved 815 foreign-financed agricultural projects since 2007. Any land investors are unable to buy is leased for about $1 per year per hectare.

Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern emirate states, Qatar, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi, are thought to be the biggest buyers of African land. In 2008, Saudi Arabia, one of the Middle East's largest wheat-growers, announced it was to reduce domestic cereal production by 12 percent a year to conserve water. The government earmarked US$5 bn to provide loans at preferential rates to Saudi companies to invest in countries with strong agricultural potential.

Saudi Arabia is also leasing land from other countries such as Pakistan [19], already water-stressed, water-depleted. Ayesha Siddiqa, a strategic and political analyst said the idea is for individual landowners to lease to investors, opening the door to large-scale corporate farming. “Big landowners who are now renting out their land to small farmers will throw them out and put it up to the highest foreign bidder,” she said, predicting that small landholders with 5-10 acres would be bought out, and “landlessness and rural poverty will increase.” Saudi Arabia is not just acquiring land but is also hundreds of millions of gallons of precious water a year.

Many of the deals are widely condemned by both western non-government groups and nationals as "new colonialism".

3

Fuel versus food Biofuels from crops not only jeopardize food production; they are highly unsustainable, requiring huge inputs of fertilizers and pesticides as well as water, depleting soil fertility, accelerating soil erosion and generating a great deal of polluting wastes. A realistic energy accounting shows that all biofuels except one require more energy input in fossil fuels than the energy in the biofuel product. In other words, they have net negative energy returns and hence result in more CO2 emissions than just using the fossil fuels [15]. The energy returns for the major biofuels are: corn ethanol -46 percent, switchgrass -68 percent; soybean biodiesel -63 percent; and rapeseed -58 percent. Even palm oil produced in Thailand has a -8 percent net energy return. The only exception is ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil, with a positive energy return of 128 percent [20], though it is still unsustainable in other respects.

GMOs definitely not the answer You may be aware of the propaganda that genetically modified (GM) crops are desperately needed for feeding the world and saving the climate. A three-year assessment by 400 scientists, policymakers and non-government organization representatives – IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development) [21] – concluded that GM crops are at best irrelevant for food security and poverty alleviation, and small scale agro-ecological farming is the way ahead [22] (“GM-Free Organic Agriculture to Feed the World”, SiS 38).

GM crops are actually much worse than the high input green revolution varieties they replace, as documented by the large dossier of evidence we have accumulated over the years [23, 24] (The Case for A GM-Free Sustainable World, GM Science Exposed, ISIS publications). They require more fertilizers, more pesticides, more water, but yield less. GM crops are less resilient to environmental stresses, pests and diseases and hence highly vulnerable to climate change. But they cost more because of the corporate monopoly developed around gene patenting. Above all, genetic modification introduces specific hazards as I have indicated for more than ten years [25] (Genetic Engineering Dream or Nightmare, ISIS publication). Many scientists now acknowledge those hazards,some having done their own studies [26] (GM is Dangerous and Futile, SiS 40).

Sustainable agriculture and green energies needed The scramble for biofuels and its conflict with food production makes clear that food and fuel security are inextricably linked, which is why we need to act promptly to implement sustainable, low input, organic agriculture and the new green energy economy..

In April 2008, we released a comprehensive report [27] Food Futures Now: *Organic *Sustainable *Fossil Fuel Free (ISIS/TWN publication) on how organic agriculture and localized food and energy systems can provide food and fuel security, mitigating and adapting to climate change, and freeing us from fossil fuels. The report is a unique combination of scientific analyses, case studies on farmer-led research, and especially farmers’ own experiences and innovations that often confound academic scientists wedded to outmoded and obsolete theories.

A companion volume released towards the end of 2009 [28] Green Energies - 100% Renewable by 2050 (ISIS/TWN publication), documents how the world is already shifting to renewable energies, and that 100 percent green power is realistic by 2050, from available and rapidly improving technologies. The key is decentralised distributed generation that offers maximum flexibility to take advantage of technological improvements, giving people autonomy and

4

independence from obsolete, wasteful, centralised power plants. Germany has shown us how to implement decentralised distributed renewable energies rapidly in the past five years, and its renewable energy industry says it is on course to become 100 percent renewable by 2050.

Renewable energy is inexhaustible energy that does not run out. It is free once you’ve installed the equipment to capture it, and companies can’t meter it or cut you off. Most importantly, it is available to all, so no need to fight over it!

Green energies are not just renewable; they must be environmentally friendly, healthy, safe, non-polluting and sustainable. That rules out nuclear, carbon capture and storage, biofuels, and its latest incarnation biochar [29]. Biochar is worse because green plants not only fix carbon dioxide in biomass, they also generate oxygen that aerobic organisms like us need. Climatologists have found [30] O2 Dropping Faster than CO2 Rising (SiS 44). Turning vast quantities of plant biomass into charcoal for burial in hundreds of millions of hectares of ‘spare land’, as proposed in the International Biochar Initiative is the surest way to deplete atmospheric oxygen and precipitate mass species extinction. And humans would be the first to go.

This brings me to how ‘sustainable’ should be defined. It is to endure for hundreds or thousands of years like natural ecosystems, thanks to a natural circular economy of reciprocity and cooperation that renews and regenerates the whole (more later). For human beings, it is to use natural resources responsibly and equitably, to meet the needs of all in the present without compromising the needs of future generations.

The world’s potential of green energies is truly enormous. Wind power has the potential to supply the world’s electricity needs 40 times or 5 times all its energy needs. Solar panels at a modest 10 percent efficiency covering 0.1 percent of the world’s land surface could provide all our energy needs. Methane from anaerobic digestion of organic wastes can save over 50 percent of our energy consumption in combination with local organic food production. And there are many further possibilities, according to local resources: microhydroelectric, geothermal, tidal reef, deep water air-conditioning (but not on large scale), saline agriculture, and more.

A recent assessment of global potential for renewable energies by the German government [31] (see Table 1) shows that the total potential for solar, wind, small hydro, ocean (including tidal, wave, and deep water), and geothermal is 11 942 EJ, more than 20 times the current energy consumption. The largest electricity generation potential are the solar technologies concentrating solar thermal power plants (CSP) and photovoltaics (PV), followed by wind onshore and ocean energy. The potential for CSP and PV electricity generation is particularly large in Africa. Wind onshore potentials are high in North America, while Latin America has abundant biomass resources.

Table 1. Regional potentials for renewable energies EJ/year

5

Our enquiry into green energies [28] concludes that the world can be 100 percent renewable

by 2050. • A variety of truly green and affordable options already exist, and more innovations are on

the way. • Policies that promote innovations and stimulate internal market for decentralised, distributed

generation are key • Global cooperation is crucial; developed nations have an international obligation to support

developing nations to fight global warming with renewable energies, including free technology transfer.

Sustainable agriculture the first fuel for the green economy Sustainable agriculture is the heart of a truly green economy. Not only does it produce food, which is fuel for human beings, it satisfies our other basic needs such as fibres for clothing, wood for construction material, medicinal herbs, biomass for fuel, paper, etc. In extracting these goods from nature, we need to treat her as a cherished friend, which is where sustainable agriculture begins and ends. In return, nature pays us back handsomely

Sustainable agriculture saves energy and carbon emissions, prevents pollution of the environment, increases biodiversity, (certainly saving our bees), yields more than chemical agriculture, produces healthier food for the nation, results in more profit for farmers, creates more jobs, and when integrated with local green energies generation, forms the green circular economy we need to replace the unsustainable economic model.

I have presented the case for sustainable agriculture in more detail, and done some preliminary accounting for China as an example [32], and will summarize it briefly here. More productive It is a common myth that organic agriculture yields less than conventional chemically fertilized agriculture. An analysis of 293 studies worldwide in which yields of organic production were compared with conventional chemical production revealed that organic agriculture on average yields 32.1 percent more than conventional agriculture. Also, green manure alone provides more than enough nitrogen, amounting to 171 percent of synthetic N fertilizer used currently.

Similarly, a seven year-long field experiment carried out with farmers in Ethiopia found that crops fed with organic compost out-yielded chemically-fertilized crops by about 30 percent

An experiment in Iowa University in the United States assessing the performance of farms switching from conventional to certified organic grain over four years - three years of transition to organic and first year of certified organic growth - found that over the four years, corn yield in the organic system averaged 91.8 percent of conventional corn yield, and soybean in the organic system averaged 99.6 percent of conventional soybean yield. The small reductions in yields were due to bigger reductions during the first and second years of transition. By the third year, there were no significant differences in yields, but by the fourth year, both organic corn and soybean yields exceeded conventional yields.

Three cycles of conversion from conventional to organic have now been completed, and over the 12 years, the average corn yields are 171 and 163 bushels/acre for organic and conventional respectively; the average yields for organic and conventional soybeans are identical at 47 bushels/acre.

6

More income for farmers The same Iowa State University experiment demonstrated that on average, the organic crops return twice as much earnings over the four years, largely due to savings on chemical fertilizers and pesticides. There is plenty of evidence that organic farmers earn more than conventional farmers all over the world [27]. More resistance and resilience An important advantage of organic cropping systems is that they are more resistant to physical stresses such as floods and droughts, and biological stresses such as pests and diseases. Also, they are more resilient, in that they recover faster from stresses. These qualities make them perfect for adapting to climate change and improving food security. A study carried out in Nicaragua after Hurricane Mitch found that organic, agro-ecologically managed farms were more resistant to damage. They had more topsoil, more vegetation, less erosion and lower economic losses compared to plots on conventional farms. A long-term field trial at Rodale Institute in Kutztown, Pennsylvania involving 6.1 ha compared three different cropping systems: conventional, animal manure and legume-based organic, and legume-based organic. The results over 13 years showed that organic yields were not different from conventional, except in drought years, when organic yields were 28 to 34 percent higher than conventional. Organic soils had superior water-holding capacity, and water percolating through into the soil was 15 to 20 percent greater in organic soils. Saves energy It is estimated that a third or more of all energy used in US agriculture goes to commercial fertilizer and pesticide production, the most energy intensive of all farm inputs. Approximately 80 MJ of fossil fuel energy is spent in making and transporting 1 kg of fertilizer N. China used 32.6 Mt fertilizer N in 2007, amounting to 2.61 EJ of energy (3.6 percent of national energy consumption of 72.2 EJ in 2006), or 57.9 Mt of oil (14.6 percent of national oil consumption). I have not included the energy costs of pesticides, which could be 10 to 20 percent that of N fertilizers. Saves the climate Phasing out N fertilizers saves an equivalent of 57.9 Mt of oil that emits 179.5 Mt CO2 (2.38 percent national emissions). Moreover, using organic as opposed to chemical fertilizers reduced N2O emissions by 22 percent in a rice-duck system in south China. China’s N2O constituted 8 percent of its 7.527 Gt national greenhouse gas emissions in 2005, of which 70 percent is attributable to agriculture. A 22 percent reduction in N2O on switching from chemical to organic fertilizer would save 1.23 percent of national greenhouse emissions, i.e., 92.7 Mt CO2e. So phasing out N fertilizers would result in a total saving of 272.2 Mt CO2e (3.62 percent national emissions).

The major saving is in organic soils, whcih sequester a lot of carbon. A long term study at the Rodale Institute in Kutztown, Pennsylvania, USA, found that organic soils sequester on average 4.114 tonnes of CO2/ha/y, while soils in conventionally managed crops did not increase in carbon content. China has 166 million ha of crop lands in 2007. If all the croplands were converted to organic, the amount of carbon sequestered would be 682.9 Mt of CO2, or 9.07 percent of national emissions. Thus, a total of 917.9 Mt CO2 would be mitigated each year, representing 12.19 percent of national emissions. Anaerobic digestion China has been supporting anaerobic digestion for industry and households since 2003. However, its use on farms is still limited. It is estimated that livestock wastes from agriculture emit

7

greenhouse gases, especially CH4, amounting to 800 Mt a year, and about 400 Mt CO2e could be mitigated if the livestock wastes were anaerobically digested. At the same time, it would yield 13.9 Mt, or 0.774EJ of methane fuel, and mitigating 53.5 Mt CO2e in substituting for fossil fuels.

Anaerobic digestion could include human manure (traditionally used as crop fertilizer in China). Agriculture is estimated to employ 40.8 percent of the population. Anaerobic digestion of the manure from 40.8 percent of 1.4 billion would yield 2.0168 Mt methane or 0.112 EJ energy..

In addition, China has an estimated unused primary agricultural and forestry residues (in dry mass) of 263.285 Mt/y and secondary agricultural and forestry residues of 47.889 Mt/y. Plant biomass has a higher yield of methane, up to 0.266 kg per kg total solid, and therefore has the potential to generate a total of 82.756 Mt methane providing 4.6 EJ energy. The advantages of anaerobic digestion are well-known (see Box 1 [33]). The enormous energy potential from wastes in the form of methane, coupled with its overriding environmental and agronomic benefits stand in stark contrast to the many harmful consequences of producing biofuels from energy crops, first or second generation. Box 1 Advantages of anaerobic digestion of organic wastes • Produces an abundant, readily available source of bioenergy that does not take land away from

growing food • Takes a wide range of feedstock, including livestock and human manure, crop and food

residues, paper, bakery and brewery wastes, slaughterhouse wastes, garden trimmings, etc, and the yields of methane generally better in mixed waste streams

• Biogas methane is a clean cooking fuel, especially compared to firewood (and dung) • Methane can be used as fuel for mobile vehicles or for combined heat and power generation

Methane-driven cars are currently the cleanest vehicles on the road by far • Biogas methane is a renewable and carbon mitigating fuel (more than carbon neutral); it saves

on carbon emission twice over, by preventing the escape of methane and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere and by substituting for fossil fuel

• Conserves plant nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous for soil productivity • Produces a superb fertilizer for crops as by-product • Prevents pollution of ground water, soil, and air • Improves food and farm hygiene, removing 90 percent or more of harmful chemicals and

bacteria • Recycles wastes efficiently into food and energy resources for the circular economy

A combination of organic agriculture and anaerobic digestion in China has the potential to mitigate at least 23 percent of national greenhouse gas emissions and save 11.3 percent of energy consumption (see Table 3). In other words, sustainable agriculture with anaerobic digestion saves more than the agricultural sectors’ emissions and energy use, thus already contributing to other sectors of the green economy.

8

Table 3 Green potential of organic agriculture and anaerobic digestion CO2e savings (% National) Energy savings (% National) Organic agriculture N fertilizers saving 179.5 Mt ( 2.38%) 2.608 EJ ( 3.61%) N2O prevented 92.7 Mt ( 1.23%) Carbon sequestration 682.9 Mt ( 9.07%) Total for org. agri. 955.1 Mt (12.69%) 2.608 EJ ( 3.61%) Anaerobic digestion Livestock manure ghg saving 400.0 Mt ( 5.31%) methane produced 53.5 Mt ( 0.71%) 0.774 EJ ( 1.07%) Hum manure methane 7.7 Mt ( 0.10%) 0.112 EJ ( 0.16%) Ag.& for. res. methane 317.8 Mt ( 4.22%) 4.600 EJ ( 6.37%) Total for AD 779.0 Mt (10.35%) 5.486 EJ ( 7.60%) Total overall 1 734.1 Mt (23.04%) 8.166 EJ (11.31%) Implementing the circular economy with green energies and sustainable agriculture Anaerobic digestion is the very embodiment of circular economy. It recycles wastes efficiently into food and energy resources. The role of anaerobic digestion in the circular economy is most clearly seen in the Dream Farm concept [33] that I have formalized from the work of waste-management engineer George Chan. It is an abundantly productive farm with diverse crops, livestock and fish ponds, built around anaerobic digestion of livestock and other organic wastes. George Chan, in turn, learned about this circular economy from the Chinese peasants who perfected the dyke-pond system of Pearl River Delta [34]. The Chinese peasants, like many traditional indigenous farmers, know that nature runs on the circular economy, which is why it is sustainable. There are many dyke-pond systems. In one version, pigs, elephant grass, mulberry and silkworms are raised on the dykes, the wastes and elephant grass go to feed up to 5 species of carp in the ponds. The pond water is used to ‘fertigate’ the crops on the dykes, and pond mud used as additional fertilizer. The system was so productive that it supported 17 people per ha in its heyday. This is the kind of productivity that China needs for its limited land.

I have proposed a Dream Farm 2 [32] (see Fig. 1) which, in addition to anaerobic digestion, explicitly incorporates green energies at small to micro-scale (and include permanent pastures and woodlands). This mix of energies not only ensures a reliable supply, but can reduce energy use by at least 30 percent through exploiting ‘waste’ heat from power generation, and preventing energy loss in long distance distribution and transmission.

9

Figure 1 Dream Farm 2

The diagram is colour-coded. Pink is for energy, green for agricultural produce, blue is for

water conservation and flood control, black is waste in the ordinary sense of the word, which soon gets converted into food and energy resources. Purple is for education and research into new science and technologies. The advantages of Dream Farm 2 are presented in Box 2.

Box 2 The advantages of Dream Farm 2: • Thermodynamically optimized for efficient use of resources and productivity • Energy use at the point of production improves efficiency by up to 60 percent • Runs entirely on renewable energies without fossil fuels, hence saving up to 100 percent of

carbon emissions • Increases sequestration of carbon in soil and in standing biomass • Reduces wastes and environmental pollution to a minimum • Conserves and purifies water and controls flooding • Produces a diversity of crops, livestock and fish in abundance • Fresh and nutritious food free from agrochemicals produced and consumed locally for

maximum health benefits

10

• Provides employment opportuni8ties for the local community • Demonstrates circular zero-entropy economy at work • Assembles in one showcase all the relevant technologies that can deliver sustainable food and

energy and a profitable zero-carbon green economy • Provides an incubator for new energy and food technologies • Provides hands-on education and research opportunities at all levels from infants to university

students and beyond • Promotes similar farms all over the world

Approximately 57 percent of China’s carbon emissions come from the energy sector,

according to the energy mix given by the International Energy Agency [35]. An efficiency saving of 30 percent would mean a reduction of 17.1 percent in carbon emissions. The green potential of Dream Farm 2 is given in Table 4. As can be seen, Dream Farm 2, if generally adopted in China, would mitigate 40 percent of greenhouse emissions, and save 41 percent of energy consumption, only counting anaerobic digestion. So, with the addition of solar, wind or microhydroelectric as appropriate, such farms can compensate in the best case scenario for the carbon emissions and energy consumption of the entire nation. The key to the success of Dream Farm 2 is local production and local consumption for both food and energy. Table 4 Green potential of Dream Farm 2 CO2e savings (% National) Energy savings (% National) Organic agriculture 955.1 Mt (12.69%) 2.608 EJ ( 3.61%) Anaerobic digestion 779.0 Mt (10.35%) 5.486 EJ ( 7.60%) Energy savings local gen. 1 287.1 Mt (17.10%) 21.660 EJ (30.00%) Total 2 983.6 Mt (40.14%) 32.363 EJ (41.21%) I am pleased to see that UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) has come to the same conclusion quite independently, in its latest Trade and Environment Review (TER) [36]. It proposes that developing nations can effectively leapfrog (my word) to low carbon economies by improving energy efficiency, adopting organic agriculture, and installing affordable off-grid renewable energies. There is certainly much scope for energy efficiency that is almost immediately profitable in savings on energy and maintenance, in building technologies as stressed in the TER, and also other simple technologies mentioned in my report on the TER [37], such as variable speed motors and LED (light emission diodes) lighting.. Circular economy of the organism and sustainable systems Finally, circular economy describes how organisms transform energy and materials most efficiently. My book on the subject [38] The Rainbow and the Worm, The Physics of Organisms was first published in 1993, and is now in its third enlarged edition.

When you transform the linear into circular, you turn output into input again, thus, you end up conserving energy and resources (Figure 2). The is entirely intuitive even though it is supported by deep thermodynamic principles described in the book.

11

Figure 2 From linear to circular economy

In the ideal, the organism’s circular economy satisfies the zero-entropy condition (Fig. 3) -

entropy being made up of dissipated or waste energy..

Figure 3 The zero-entropy model of organisms and sustainable systems

The zero-entropy ideal depends on coupled cycles of activities at every scale, activities that

generate energy are directly linked to those requiring energy; thereby minimising the dissipation of energy and materials, and even the wastes exported to the environment is minimum, which makes sense, as the organism depends on the environment for input. Sustainable ecological and

12

agroecological systems work precisely in the same way (Fig. 4). Lots of life cycles are coupled together, and the ‘wastes’ of one organism is nutrient for another.

Figure 4 The circular economy of organisms and sustainable systems

The circular green economy is built on reciprocity and cooperation, and balanced growth at

every stage. As you can see, more lifecycles can be added into the system to make it bigger, provided these lifecycles are linked by reciprocity and cooperation. It is intuitive to see the different lifecycles as biodiversity; the more biodiversity, the more productive the system, which amounts to sustainable development, or balanced growth at every stage.

The green economy (Figure 5, left) contrasts strongly with the dominant brown economy. The brown economy is based on infinite growth fuelled by maximum dissipation and exploitation of people and planet. It doesn’t close the circle to build up structure or dynamic cycles. Boom and bust are inherent to the brown economy, so financial collapse is nothing new. More seriously, it has destroyed the earth’s habitats and brought us climate change.

The green economy closes circles and builds balanced dynamic structures that sustain the whole, and enable us to thrive in balance with the earth. We must not hesitate to choose the green economy now.

13

Figure 5 The green versus the brown economy

References

1. “World food aid at 20-year low, 1 billion hungry-WFP”, Reuters, 16 September 2009, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLF132356

2. “The global food crisis. More than one billion people affected by world food shortages”, Angela Higbee, suite101.com, 9 November 2009, http://world-hunger.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_global_food_crisis_part_1

3. “2010 food crisis for dummies” Eric deCarbonnet, Market Skeptics, 17 December 2009, http://www.marketskeptics.com/2009/12/2010-food-crisis-for-dummies.html

4. Ho MW. Why we need organic sustainable food systems now. In I Ho MW, Burcher S, Lim LC, et al. Food Futures Now, Organic, Sustainable, Fossil Fuel Free, ISIS/TWN, London/Penang, 2008, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/foodFutures.php

5. “Experts: global food shortages could ‘continue for decades’” Joseph Dancy, The Market Oracle, 22 February 2008, http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article3782.html

6. Ho MW and Cummins J. Mystery of disappearing honeybees. Science in Society 34, 35-36, 2007.

7. Ho MW. Oil running out? Science in Society 25, 50-51, 2005. 8. Darley J. High Noon for Natural Gas, Chelsea Green Publishing Company, Vermont, 2004. 9. Peng S, Huang J, Sheehy JE, LazAa RC, Visperas RM, Zhong X, Centeno GS, Khush GS

and Cassman KG, Rice yields decline with higher night temperatures from global warming. PNAS 2004, 101, 9971-5.

10. “Warmer planet, fewer crops? Ezra Klein, The Washington Post, 14 October 2009, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/13/AR2009101300419.html

11. Ho MW. Europe unveils 2020 plan for reducing C emissions. Science in Society 37 12. Ho MW. Biofuels for oil addicts. Science in Society 30

14

13. Most of the petroleum we use is imported. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Independent Statistics and Analysis, 23 February 2010, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_imports

14. Pimentel D. Corn ethanol as energy. The case against US production subsidies. International Harvard Review Agriculture 31, Summer 2009, http://hir.harvard.edu/index.php?page=article&id=1911

15. Pimentel D, Marklein A, Toth MA, Karpoff MN and Paul GS. Food versus biofuels: environmental and economic costs. Hum Ecol 2009, 37, 1-12

16. Ho MW. Biofuels = biodevastation, hunger and false carbon credits. In Ho MW, Burcher S, Lim LC, et al. Food Futures Now, Organic, Sustainable, Fossil Fuel Free, ISIS/TWN, London/Penang, 2008, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/foodFutures.php

17. Ho MW. Food without fossil fuels now. Science in Society 39, 7-13, 2008. 18. “How food and water are driving a 21st century African land grab”, John Vidal, the

Guardian.co.uk, 7 March 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/07/food-water-africa-land-grab

19. “Using Pakistan’s land to grow food for the Saudis”, Nirupama Subrmanian, Alaiwah! 5 October 2009, http://alaiwah.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/using-pakistans-land-to-grow-food-for-the-saudis/

20. Pimentel, D., and Patzek, T. W. (2007). Ethanol Production: Energy and Economic Issues Related to U.S. and Brazilian Sugarcane. Natural Resources Research 16: 235–242.

21. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, Island Press, 2010, http://www.islandpress.org/iaastd

22. Ho MW. “GM-free organic agriculture to feed the world”. Science in Society 38, 14-15, 2008.

23. Ho MW and Lim LC. The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World, Independent Science Panel Report, Institute of Science in Society and Third World Network, London and Penang, 2003; republished GM-Free, Exposing the Hazards of Biotechnology to Ensure the Integrity of Our Food Supply, Vitalhealth Publishing, Ridgefield, Ct., 2004 (both available from ISIS online bookstore http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/books.php#1)

24. GM Science Exposed: Hazards Ignored, Fraud, Regulatory Sham and Violation of Farmers’ Rights, ISIS CD book, 2008. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GM_Science_Exposed.php

25. Ho MW. Genetic Engineering Dream of Nightmare? The Brave New World of Bad Science and Big Business, Third World Network, Gateway Books, MacMillan, Continuum, Penang, Malaysia, Bath, UK, Dublin, Ireland, New York, USA, 1998, 1999, 2007 (reprint with extended Introduction).

26. Ho MW. GM is dangerous and futile. Science in Society 40, 4-8, 2008. 27. Ho MW, Burcher S, Lim LC et al. Food Futures Now, Organic, Sustainable, Fossil Fuel

Free, ISIS/TWN, London/Penang, 2008, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/foodFutures.php 28. Ho MW, Cherry B, Burcher S and Saunders PT. Green Energies, 100% Renewables by

2050, ISIS/TWN, London/Penang, 2009, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GreenEnergies.php 29. Ho MW. Beware the Biochar Initiative. In Ho MW, Cherry B, Burcher S and Saunders PT.

Green Energies, 100% Renewables by 2050, ISIS/TWN, London/Penang, 2009, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GreenEnergies.php

30. Ho MW. O2 dropping faster than CO2 rising. Science in Society 44, 8-10, 2009.

15

31. Ho MW. Sustainable agriculture, green energies and the green circular economy. Based on invited lectures at the International Workshop on Sustainable Food and Agriculture, Remin University, Beijing 13-15 March 2010.

32. Ho MW. Dream Farm 2, sustainable, organic, and free from fossil fuels. In Ho MW, Burcher S, Lim LC, et al. Food Futures Now, Organic, Sustainable, Fossil Fuel Free, ISIS/TWN, London/Penang, 2008, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/foodFutures.php

33. Ho MW. Dream Farm. In Ho MW, Burcher S, Lim LC, et al. Food Futures Now, Organic, Sustainable, Fossil Fuel Free, ISIS/TWN, London/Penang, 2008, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/foodFutures.php

34. Ho MW. Circular economy of the dyke-pond system. In Ho MW, Burcher S, Lim LC, et al. Food Futures Now, Organic, Sustainable, Fossil Fuel Free, ISIS/TWN, London/Penang, 2008, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/foodFutures.php

35. Eisentraut A. Sustainable Production of Second-Generation Biofuels. Potential and perspectives in major economics and developing countries, Information Paper, International Energy Agency, February 2010, Paris, France

36. Trade and Environment Review 2009/2010, Promoting poles of clean growth to foster the transition to a more sustainable economy, United Nations, Geneva, 2010.

37. Ho MW. Green growth for developing nations. Science in Society 46 (to appear). 38. Ho MW. The Rainbow and the Worm, The Physics of Organisms, 3rd enlarged edition,

World Scientific, Singapore & London, 2008, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/rnbwwrm.php