Feeding the world just got harder

Whoops, that would be 10 billion people, not 9. Africa is the big driver. I suspect this number could still move a lot. Economic growth will be a key determinant.

Chart of the Day: Population density in Europe, Africa

From probably the best economics blog in Southern Sudan, which writes:

If you think that population density is important for political and economic outcomes (I do), this development could be pretty revolutionary.

From a resources perspective, urbanization can be a positive trend in terms of efficiency (particularly energy used for transportation), beyond the other well-documented effects on improving market linkages, etc.

There are potential downsides as well. Anyone who has visited slums in the developing world can attest that poverty and unemployment in an urban setting can be an explosive combination. The urban poor are much more vulnerable to food price spikes than rural farmers (although the latter are more vulnerable than many people realize - surprisingly many are net buyers of tradable staple crops). And it may also be that one cause of this rapid urbanization is the inability of the rural economy - again, primarily agriculture - to provide sufficient economic opportunities to a growing population.

4.6 barrels per year

Morgan Downey at Scarce Whales brings us this fascinating chart:

He explains of the curious stability of per capita oil consumption since 1982 as the shift to open markets:

Why has per capita consumption been so stable since 1982 having grown at an increasing pace for the prior 120 years (chart 2 again)? The answer is that a new method of rationing demand emerged in 1983: benchmark pricing linked to transparent free liquid markets (see chapter 1 of Oil 101). Free markets and necessarily volatile oil price became the adjusting factor matching available supply to demand.

This may be true in part, but I am still surprised - economic growth tends to increase per capita consumption of resources even in the presence of free markets (which we can see with oil):

To put the global average of 4.6 barrels of oil consumption per year in perspective, the number of barrels consumed per person in 2008 in India was 0.9, China 2.2, Brazil 4.6, Germany 11.1 and the US 23.3.

Since global GDP has grown quite a bit since 1982 (I would guess faster than population), I would have expected per capita consumption of oil to rise accordingly. In other words, I would have expected the free market to match supply and demand, but to meet higher global demand. Have efficiency gains completely offset this? I'd be interested to hear if anyone has a good explanation.

Family planning = cheap carbon abatement

Via Environmental Economics:

Contraception is almost five times cheaper as a means of preventing climate change than conventional green technologies, according to research by the London School of Economics.

Every £4 spent on family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a ton, whereas a minimum of £19 would have to be spent on low-carbon technologies to achieve the same result, the research says.

The report, Fewer Emitter, Lower Emissions, Less Cost, concludes that family planning should be seen as one of the primary methods of emissions reduction. The UN estimates that 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended.

Now, at £4/ton of CO2e, contraception wouldn't be the cheapest carbon abatement lever (many energy efficiency opportunities actually save money, for example), but it would certainly be cheaper than the marginal carbon abatement lever.

Looked at through this lens, China's one-child policy could be seen as a massive investment in the environment - a thought that has already occurred to some Chinese officials.

Moving chart of the day

Via MR, Calculated Risk has the animated distribution of U.S. population by age. A bit frightening