It is the first time Bush has committed the US to a long-term target, and represents a big shift in the US position as Barack Obama and John McCain fight for the presidency. But the deal, agreed at the G8 summit in northern Japan, was immediately rejected by the big five emerging economies, including China and India because they believe it does not go far enough.

Leaders from Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa will meet with Bush and other G8 leaders at the summit where they will demand more concerted action from the developed world.

In a statement tonight, the five nations, after meeting at a separate summit in Japan, said: “It is essential that developed countries take the lead in achieving ambitious and absolute greenhouse gas emission reductions.”

They want the G8 countries to commit themselves to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% to 95% below 1990 levels by 2050. They are also concerned that the deal fails to set milestone interim targets for the coming decades and does not make clear the scale of the cuts to be expected from the developed and developing world.

Mexico, Brazil, China, India and South Africa also urged all developed countries to commit themselves to absolute emission reductions based on a medium-term target of a 25% to 40% cut below 1990 levels by 2020.

The G8 is making an offer to provide up to $150bn (£76bn) in public and private investment over the next three years to help them grow economically while using green technology.

Despite the tough statement from the emerging economies, Gordon Brown said the deal marked “major progress” and British officials claimed the deal opened the way for agreement next year under UN auspices at Copenhagen on a new long-term framework on climate change, replacing the flawed agreement struck at Kyoto in 1997.

They pointed out that Obama was already committed to an 80% cut in US carbon emissions and McCain to a 60% reduction. Both candidates’ commitments would be sufficient to meet the US required contribution for a worldwide cut of 50%, seen as the minimum to avert catastrophic climate change.

Green groups slammed the deal, although they privately acknowledged that Bush has shifted his position substantially from a time when he denied the science of climate change.

Friends of the Earth’s international climate campaigner, Tom Picken, accused G8 leaders of an “elaborate smokescreen” to try to fool the world they were showing international leadership on global warming.

“Setting a vague target for 42 years’ time is utterly ineffectual in the fact of the global catastrophe we all face. Urgent action is needed to tackle climate change and spiralling energy prices caused by our addiction to increasingly expensive and insecure fossil fuels.”

The EU commission said any mention of mid-term goals was an advance from last year when the G8 agreed only to “seriously consider” a goal of halving emissions by mid-century.

Yvo de Boer, head of the UN climate change secretariat, said the G8 deal had positive elements, but warned: “What I find lacking is any kind of language on where industrialised nations, G8 nations, want their emissions to be in 2020 and I think that is critical to making progress in the negotiations.”

US sources said huge challenges remained including an agreed framework to measure carbon reductions, a mechanism to drive down carbon emissions such as an international carbon trading scheme, the scale of the contributions to be required from differing developing countries, and whether targets could be set on economic sectors instead of countries. Populous developing countries such as India claim their per capita emisisons are tiny in comparison with the US. Methods also have to be found to bring aviation and maritime emissions within the scheme.

British officials were pleased that there will also be a new push to set international benchmarks on biofuels, a move that could require US corn producers to scale back on production for biofuels.

Oxfam described the deal as little more than a stalling tactic. They claimed much of the money from the multilateral banks was simply transferred from aid programmes.

Environmental campaign group WWF said: “The G8 are responsible for 62% of the carbon dioxide accumulated in the Earth’s atmosphere, which makes them the main culprit of climate change and the biggest part of the problem.”

Marthinus van Schalkwyk, South African minister of environmental affairs and tourism, said: “As it is expressed in the G8 statement, the long term goal is an empty slogan. To be meaningful and credible, a long-term goal must have a base year, it must be underpinned by ambitious mid-term targets and actions.”

In a statement released today, the academies said governments meeting in Japan next month for the G8 summit should commit to halving emissions by 2050.

And without action to help countries - particularly in the developing world - adapt to the changes that warming temperatures will bring, climate change and rising populations will worsen existing food and water shortages, they said.Water resources, food supplies, health, coastal settlements and some ecosystems, particularly in Africa, Asia and small islands, are likely to be most affected by global warming, the statement said.

The scientists called for improvements in our ability to predict the effects of climate change, and investment in technology which will help people cope with those impacts.

The G8+5 countries should also lead the way in developing carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to prevent emissions from energy generation, particularly coal.

The scientists said the nations meeting for the G8 summit in Hokkaido should agree a timetable, funding and co-ordinated plan by 2009 for “a significant number” of demonstration CCS plants.

The measures should be part of a transition to a low-carbon society in a bid to stabilise emissions at a level at which they can be absorbed by the Earth’s natural systems - which is approximately half the rate of current output.

Alongside technology developments, the scientists said a number of measures were needed to transfer to a low-carbon society including investment in renewable energy, tackling deforestation and protecting ecosystems.

Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, one of the signatories to the statement, said the food and water shortages which were already a dangerous reality in many developing countries and would be aggravated by climate change and a growing population.

“These threats must be properly assessed and solutions identified if we are to avoid costly mistakes from investing in technologies and infrastructure that do not take climate change into account.”

And he said: “Coal will continue to be one of the world’s primary energy sources for the next 50 years.

“If coal burning power plants and industries continue to pump out carbon dioxide unabated we face a growing risk of triggering a dangerous and irreversible change in the climate.

“Techniques for carbon capture and storage must therefore be developed urgently.”

He said current efforts to boost the technology were “quite inadequate” and the countries attending the G8 summit should commit themselves to a much bigger, better co-ordinated programme.

“The sooner this technology can be proven and widely adopted, and annual carbon dioxide emissions stopped from rising, the lower the risk of catastrophic climate change,” he said.

Copyright © 2008 Newsquest

1. Yield

Switching to organic farming would have different effects according to where in the world you live and how you currently farm.

Studies show that the less-industrialised world stands to benefit the most. In southern Brazil, maize and wheat yields doubled on farms that changed to green manures and nitrogenfixing leguminous vegetables instead of chemical fertilisers.1 In Mexico, coffee-growers who chose to move to fully organic production methods saw increases of 50 per cent in the weight of beans they harvested. In fact, in an analysis of more than 286 organic conversions in 57 countries, the average yield increase was found to be an impressive 64 per cent.2

The situation is more complex in the industrialised world, where farms are large, intensive facilities, and opinions are divided on how organic yields would compare.

Research by the University of Essex in 1999 found that, although yields on US farms that converted to organic initially dropped by between 10 and 15 per cent, they soon recovered, and the farms became more productive than their all-chemical counterparts.3 In the UK, however, a study by the Elm Farm Research Centre predicted that a national transition to all-organic farming would see cereal, rapeseed and sugar beet yields fall by between 30 and 60 per cent.4 Even the Soil Association admits that, on average in the UK, organic yields are 30 per cent lower than non-organic.

So can we hope to feed ourselves organically in the British Isles and Northern Europe? An analysis by former Ecologist editor Simon Fairlie in The Land journal suggests that we can, but only if we are prepared to rethink our diet and farming practices.5 In Fairlie’s scenario, each of the UK’s 60 million citizens could have organic cereals, potatoes, sugar, vegetables and fruit, fish, pork, chicken and beef, as well as wool and flax for clothes and biomass crops for heating. To achieve this we’d each have to cut down to around 230g of beef (½lb), compared to an average of 630g (1½lb) today, 252g of pork/bacon, 210g of chicken and just under 4kg (9lb) of dairy produce each week – considerably more than the country enjoyed in 1945. We would probably need to supplement our diet with homegrown vegetables, save our food scraps as livestock feed and reform the sewage system to use our waste as an organic fertiliser.

2. Energy

Currently, we use around 10 calories of fossil energy to produce one calorie of food energy. In a fuel-scarce future, which experts think could arrive as early as 2012, such numbers simply won’t stack up. Studies by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural affairs over the past three years have shown that, on average, organically grown crops use 25 per cent less energy than their chemical cousins. Certain crops achieve even better reductions,including organic leeks (58 per cent less energy) and broccoli (49 per cent less energy). When these savings are combined with stringent energy conservation and local distribution and consumption (such as organic box schemes), energy-use dwindles to a fraction of that needed for an intensive, centralised food system. A study by the University of Surrey shows that food from Tolhurst Organic Produce, a smallholding in Berkshire, which supplies 400 households with vegetable boxes, uses 90 per cent less energy than if non-organic produce had been delivered and bought in a supermarket.

Far from being simply ‘energy-lite’, however, organic farms have the potential to become self-sufficient in energy – or even to become energy exporters. The ‘Dream Farm’ model, first proposed by Mauritius-born agroscientist George Chan, sees farms feeding manure and waste from livestock and crops into biodigesters, which convert it into a methane-rich gas to be used for creating heat and electricity. The residue from these biodigesters is a crumbly, nutrient-rich fertiliser, which can be spread on soil to increase crop yields or further digested by algae and used as a fish or animal feed.

3. Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change

Despite organic farming’s low-energy methods, it is not in reducing demand for power that the techniques stand to make the biggest savings in greenhouse gas emissions.

The production of ammonium nitrate fertiliser, which is indispensable to conventional farming, produces vast quantities of nitrous oxide – a greenhouse gas with a global warming potential some 320 times greater than that of CO2. In fact, the production of one tonne of ammonium nitrate creates 6.7 tonnes of greenhouse gases (CO²e), and was responsible for around 10 per cent of all industrial greenhouse gas emissions in Europe in 2003.6

The techniques used in organic agriculture to enhance soil fertility in turn encourage crops to develop deeper roots, which increase the amount of organic matter in the soil, locking up carbon underground and keeping it out of the atmosphere. The opposite happens in conventional farming: high quantities of artificially supplied nutrients encourage quick growth and shallow roots. A study published in 1995 in the journal Ecological Applications found that levels of carbon in the soils of organic farms in California were as much as 28 per cent higher as a result.7 And research by the Rodale Institute shows that if the US were to convert all its corn and soybean fields to organic methods, the amount of carbon that could be stored in the soil would equal 73 per cent of the country’s (would-be) Kyoto targets for CO² reduction.8

Organic farming might also go some way towards salvaging the reputation of the cow, demonised in 2007 as a major source of methane at both ends of its digestive tract. There’s no doubt that this is a problem: estimates put global methane emissions from ruminant livestock at around 80 million tonnes a year,9 equivalent to around two billion tonnes of CO²,10 or close to the annual CO² output of Russia and the UK combined.11 But by changing the pasturage on which animals graze to legumes such as clover or birdsfoot trefoil (often grown anyway by organic farmers to improve soil nitrogen content), scientists at the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research believe that methane emissions could be cut dramatically. Because the leguminous foliage is more digestible, bacteria in the cow’s gut are less able to turn the fodder into methane. Cows also seem naturally to prefer eating birdsfoot trefoil to ordinary grass.

4. Water use

Agriculture is officially the most thirsty industry on the planet, consuming a staggering 72 per cent of all global freshwater at a time when the UN says 80 per cent of our water supplies are being overexploited.12,13

This hasn’t always been the case. Traditionally, agricultural crops were restricted to those areas best suited to their physiology, with drought-tolerant species grown in the tropics and water-demanding crops in temperate regions.14 Global trade throughout the second half of the last century led to a worldwide production of grains dominated by a handful of high-yielding cereal crops, notably wheat, maize and rice. These thirsty cereals – the ‘big three’ – now account for more than half of the world’s plant-based calories and 85 per cent of total grain production.15

Organic agriculture is different. Due to its emphasis on healthy soil structure, organic farming avoids many of the problems associated with compaction, erosion, salinisation and soil degradation, which are prevalent in intensive systems.16 Organic manures and green mulches are applied even before the crop is sown, leading to a process known as ‘mineralisation’ – literally the fixing of minerals in the soil. Mineralised organic matter, conspicuously absent from synthetic fertilisers, is one of the essential ingredients required physically and chemically to hold water on the land.

Organic management also uses crop rotations, undersowing and mixed cropping to provide the soil with near-continuous cover. By contrast, conventional farm soils may be left uncovered for extended periods prior to sowing, and again following the harvest, leaving essential organic matter fully exposed to erosion by rain, wind and sunlight. In the US, a 25-year Rodale Institute experiment on climatic extremes found that, due to improved soil structure, organic systems consistently achieve higher yields during periods both of drought and flooding.17

5. Localisation

The globalisation of our food supply, which gives us Peruvian apples in June and Spanish lettuces in February, has seen our food reduced to a commodity in an increasingly volatile global marketplace. Although year-round availability makes for good marketing in the eyes of the biggest retailers, the costs to the environment are immense.

Friends of the Earth estimates that the average meal in the UK travels 1,000 miles from plot to plate.18 In 2005, Defra released a comprehensive report on food miles in the UK, which valued the direct environmental, social and economic costs of food transport in Britain at £9 billion each year. In addition, food transport accounted for more than 30 billion vehicle kilometres, 25 per cent of all HGV journeys and 19 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions in 2002 alone.19

The organic movement was born out of a commitment to provide local food for local people, and so it is logical that organic marketing encourages localisation through veg boxes, farm shops and stalls. Between 2005 and 2006, organic sales made through direct marketing outlets such as these increased by 53 per cent, from £95 to £146 million, more than double the sales growth experienced by the major supermarkets.20 As we enter an age of unprecedented food insecurity, it is essential that our consumption reflects not only what is desirable, but also what is ultimately sustainable. While the ‘organic’ label itself may inevitably be hijacked, ‘organic and local’ represents a solution with which the global players can simply never compete.

6. Pesticides

It is a shocking testimony to the power of the agrochemical industry that in the 45 years since Rachel Carson published her pesticide warning Silent Spring, the number of commercially available synthetic pesticides has risen from 22 to more than 450.21

According to the World Health Organization there are an estimated 20,000 accidental deaths worldwide each year from pesticide exposure and poisoning.22 More than 31 million kilograms of pesticide were applied to UK crops alone in 2005, 0.5 kilograms for every person in the country.23 A spiralling dependence on pesticides throughout recent decades has resulted in a catalogue of repercussions, including pest resistance, disease susceptibility, loss of natural biological controls and reduced nutrient-cycling.24

Organic farmers, on the other hand, believe that a healthy plant grown in a healthy soil will ultimately be more resistant to pest damage. Organic systems encourage a variety of natural methods to enhance soil and plant health, in turn reducing incidences of pests, weeds and disease.

First and foremost, because organic plants grow comparatively slower than conventional varieties they have thicker cell walls, which provide a tougher natural barrier to pests. Rotations or ‘break-crops’, which are central to organic production, also provide a physical obstacle to pest and disease lifecycles by removing crops from a given plot for extended periods.25 Organic systems also rely heavily on a rich agro-ecosystem in which many agricultural pests can be controlled by their natural predators.

Inevitably, however, there are times when pestilence attacks are especially prolonged or virulent, and here permitted pesticides may be used. The use of organic pesticides is heavily regulated and the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) requires specific criteria to be met before pesticide applications can be justified.26

There are in fact only four active ingredients permitted for use on organic crops: copper fungicides, restricted largely to potatoes and occasionally orchards; sulphur, used to control additional elements of fungal diseases; Retenone, a naturally occurring plant extract, and soft soap, derived from potassium soap and used to control aphids. Herbicides are entirely prohibited.

7. Ecosystem impact

Farmland accounts for 70 per cent of UK land mass, making it the single most influential enterprise affecting our wildlife.27 Incentives offered for intensification under the Common Agricultural Policy are largely responsible for negative ecosystem impacts over recent years. Since 1962, farmland bird numbers have declined by an average of 30 per cent. During the same period more than 192,000 kilometres of hedgerows have been removed, while 45 per cent of our ancient woodland has been converted to cropland.28

By contrast, organic farms actively encourage biodiversity in order to maintain soil fertility and aid natural pest control. Mixed farming systems ensure that a diversity of food and nesting sites are available throughout the year, compared with conventional farms where autumn sow crops leave little winter vegetation available.29

Organic production systems are designed to respect the balance observed in our natural ecosystems. It is widely accepted that controlling or suppressing one element of wildlife, even if it is a pest, will have unpredictable impacts on the rest of the food chain. Instead, organic producers regard a healthy ecosystem as essential to a healthy farm, rather than a barrier to production.

In 2005, a report by English Nature and the RSPB on the impacts of organic farming on biodiversity reviewed more than 70 independent studies of flora, invertebrates, birds and mammals within organic and conventional farming systems. It concluded that biodiversity is enhanced at every level of the food chain under organic management practices, from soil micro-biota right through to farmland birds and the largest mammals.30

8. Nutritional benefits

While an all-organic farming system might mean we’d have to make do with slightly less food than we’re used to, research shows that we can rest assured it would be better for us.

In 2001, a study in the Journal of Complementary Medicine found that organic crops contained higher levels of 21 essential nutrients than their conventionally grown counterparts, including iron, magnesium, phosphorus and vitamin C. The organic crops also contained lower levels of nitrates, which can be toxic to the body.31

Other studies have found significantly higher levels of vitamins – as well as polyphenols and antioxidants – in organic fruit and veg, all of which are thought to play a role in cancer-prevention within the body.32

Scientists have also been able to work out why organic farming produces more nutritious food. Avoiding chemical fertiliser reduces nitrates levels in the food; better quality soil increases the availability of trace minerals, and reduced levels of pesticides mean that the plants’ own immune systems grow stronger, producing higher levels ofantioxidants. Slower rates of growth also mean that organic food frequently contains higher levels of dry mass, meaning that fruit and vegetables are less pumped up with water and so contain more nutrients by weight than intensively grown crops do.33

Milk from organically fed cows has been found to contain higher levels of nutrients in six separate studies, including omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin E, and beta-carotene, all of which can help prevent cancer. One experiment discovered that levels of omega-3 in organic milk were on average 68 per cent higher than in non-organic alternatives.34

But as well as giving us more of what we do need, organic food can help to give us less of what we don’t. In 2000, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) found that organically produced food had ‘lower levels of pesticide and veterinary drug residues’ than non-organic did.35 Although organic farmers are allowed to use antibiotics when absolutely necessary to treat disease, the routine use of the drugs in animal feed – common on intensive livestock farms – is forbidden. This means a shift to organic livestock farming could help tackle problems such as the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

9. Seed-saving

Seeds are not simply a source of food; they are living testimony to more than 10,000 years of agricultural domestication. Tragically, however, they are a resource that has suffered unprecedented neglect. The UN FAO estimates that 75 per cent of the genetic diversity of agricultural crops has been lost over the past 100 years.36

Traditionally, farming communities have saved seeds year-on-year, both in order to save costs and to trade with their neighbours. As a result, seed varieties evolved in response to local climatic and seasonal conditions, leading to a wide variety of fruiting times, seed size, appearance and flavour. More importantly, this meant a constant updating process for the seed’s genetic resistance to changing climatic conditions, new pests and diseases.

By contrast, modern intensive agriculture depends on relatively few crops – only about 150 species are cultivated on any significant scale worldwide. This is the inheritance of the Green Revolution, which in the late 1950s perfected varieties Filial 1, or F1 seed technology, which produced hybrid seeds with specifically desirable genetic qualities.37 These new high-yield seeds were widely adopted, but because the genetic makeup of hybrid F1 seeds becomes diluted following the first harvest, the manufacturers ensured that farmers return for more seed year on year.

With its emphasis on diversity, organic farming is somewhat cushioned from exploitation on this scale, but even Syngenta, the world’s third-largest biotech company, now offers organic seed lines. Although seedsaving is not a prerequisite for organic production, the holistic nature of organics lends itself well to conserving seed.

In support of this, the Heritage Seed Library, in Warwickshire, is a collection of more than 800 open-pollinated organic varieties, which have been carefully preserved by gardeners across the country. Although their seeds are not yet commercially available, the Library is at the forefront of addressing the alarming erosion of our agricultural diversity.

Seed-saving and the development of local varieties must become a key component of organic farming, giving crops the potential to evolve in response to what could be rapidly changing climatic conditions. This will help agriculture keeps pace with climate change in the field, rather than in the laboratory.

10. Job creation

There is no doubt British farming is currently in crisis. With an average of 37 farmers leaving the land every day, there are now more prisoners behind bars in the UK than there are farmers in the fields.38

Although it has been slow, the decline in the rural labour force is a predictable consequence of the industrialisation of agriculture. A mere one per cent of the UK workforce is now employed in land-related enterprises, compared with 35 per cent at the turn of the last century.39

The implications of this decline are serious. A skilled agricultural workforce will be essential in order to maintain food security in the coming transition towards a new model of post-fossil fuel farming. Many of these skills have already been eroded through mechanisation and a move towards more specialised and intensive production systems.

Organic farming is an exception to these trends. By its nature, organic production relies on labour-intensive management practices. Smaller, more diverse farming systems require a level of husbandry that is simply uneconomical at any other scale. Organic crops and livestock also demand specialist knowledge and regular monitoring in the absence of agrochemical controls.

According to a 2006 report by the University of Essex, organic farming in the UK provides 32 per cent more jobs per farm than comparable non-organic farms. Interestingly, the report also concluded that the higher employment observed could not be replicated in non-organic farming through initiatives such as local marketing. Instead, the majority (81 per cent) of total employment on organic farms was created by the organic production system itself. The report estimates that 93,000 new jobs would be created if all farming in the UK were to convert to organic.

Organic farming also accounts for more younger employees than any other sector in the industry. The average age of conventional UK farmers is now 56, yet organic farms increasingly attract a younger more enthusiastic workforce, people who view organics as the future of food production. It is for this next generation of farmers that Organic Futures, a campaign group set up by the Soil Association in 2007, is striving to provide a platform.

Ed Hamer is a freelance journalist

Mark Anslow is the Ecologist’s senior reporter

References

1 Andre Leu, ‘Organic Agriculture Can Feed the World’ in Organic Farming, Winter 2007, citing Jules Pretty, 2001

2 Pretty, 2006. http://www.rimisp.org/getdoc.php?docid=6440

3 Pretty, 1999, ‘The Living Land’.

4 Cited in Woodward, 2003. http://www.efrc.com/?i=articles.php&art_id=42&highlight=organic

5 Fairlie, 2007, ‘Can Britain Feed Itself?’, The Land, Winter 2007-8.

6 EEA data for EU-15, 2003, for nitric acid production cited by Soil Association

7 Drinkwater LE et al. ‘Fundamental differences between conventional and organic tomato agroecosystems in California’, Ecological Applications 1995, 5(4), 1098-1112.

8 http://www.newfarm.org/depts/NFfield_trials/1003/carbonsequest.shtml

9 US EPA, 1998, ‘Ruminant Livestock and the Global Environment’

10 Using a multiplier factor of 24.5

11 Russia annual CO2 emissions: 1,524,993,000 tonnes; UK annual CO2 emissions: 587,261,000 tonnes.

12 Weis, T. (2007) The global food economy: the battle for the future of farming, Zed Books, London.

13 UNESCO (2006) United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation, World Water Development Report 2006: http://www.unesco.org/water/wwap/wwdr/index.shtml

14 Alteiri, M. (1987) Agroecology: The Scientific Basis of Alternative Agriculture, Westview Press, Boulder.

15 FAO (1997) The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Food Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome.

16 Lampkin, N. (1990) Organic Farming, Farming Press Books, Ipswich.

17 Lim Li Ching (2005) Organic Outperforms Conventional in Climate Extremes, web accesses: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/OrganicOutperforms.php

18 FOE (2006) http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/green_new_year_resolutions_…

19 Defra (2005) The Validity of Food Miles as an Indicator of Sustainable Development: Final report, Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs.

20 Soil Association (2006) Organic Market Report 2006, Executive Summary, Soil Association, Bristol.

21 Whitehead, R. (1999) UK Pesticide Guide, British Crop Protection Council, CABI Publishing, Cambridge.

22 World Health Organisation (1990) The Public Health Impact of Pesticides Used in Agriculture, WHO, Geneva

23 Pesticide Action Network UK (2007) Pesticides on a Plate, A consumer guide to pesticide issues in the food chain, PAN UK, London

24 Sustain (2003) Myth and Reality, Organic vs. non-organic: the facts, Sustain, London.

25 Francis, C. A. & Clegg, M. D. (1990) Crop Rotations in Sustainable Production Systems, Sustainable Agriculture Systems 107-122

26 International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (1998) Basic Standards for Organic Production and Processing, IFOAM, Germany

27 Soil Association (2006) How does organic farming benefit wildlife? Soil Association 2006.

28 Spencer, J. & Kirby, K. (1992) An inventory of ancient woodland for England and Wales, Biological Conservation 62, 77-93.

29 IFOAM (2003) Organic Agriculture and Biodiversity information sheet, International Federation of Organic Agriculture and Management.

30 Hole, A. G., Perkins, A. J., Wilson, J. D., Alexander, I. H., Grice, P. V., Evans, A. D. (2005) Does Organic Farming Benefit Biodiversity? Biological Conservation, 122, 113-130.

31 Worthington V. Nutritional quality of organic versus conventional fruits, vegetables, and grains. Journal of Complimentary Medicine 2001; 7 No. 2: 161–173

32 Soil Association, 2008: http://tinyurl.com/3aye3g

33 Gundual Azeez, Policy Manager, Soil Association, Personal Communication 01/2008.

34 Soil Association, 2007: http://tinyurl.com/3e3fby

35 Food and Agriculture Organisation, Food Safety & Quality as Affected by Organic Farming, Report of the 22nd regional conference for Europe, Portugal, 24-28 July 2000.

36 FAO (1997) The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Food Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome.

37 Shiva, V. & Gitanjali, B. (2002) Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security, The Impact of globalisation, Sage Publications, London.

38 Soil Association (2006) Organic Works Report: An investigation into employment on organic farms conducted by University of Essex 2005.

39 ISEC (2002) Bringing the Food Economy Home: Local Alternatives to Global Agribusiness, Zed Books, London.

The Zoological Society of London and the Global Footprint Network also gave the following statistics: land species have declined by 25%, marine life by 28% and freshwater species by 29%. The reports editor Jonathan Loh stated that to see such a sharp fall off in the species of the planet was “completely unprecedented in terms of human history”. “You’d have to go back to the extinction of the dinosaurs to see a decline as rapid as this… In terms of human lifespan we may be seeing things change relatively slowly, but in terms of the world’s history this is very rapid.”

To us, the extinction rate may seem slow or almost non-existent, but in terms of life on a historical time line, the rate is 10,000 times faster than the rate at which the planet normally loses species. The nations of world who set to make so called “significant reductions” in species loss by 2010 will be virtually useless. So much loss has already occurred due to lack of concentrated and focused effort and inaction that it is no longer possible to make any significant reductions in such a short time frame.

Ben Collen, who is an extinctions researcher at the Zoological Society of London: “Between 1960 and 2000, the human population of the world has doubled. Yet during the same period, the animal populations have declined by 30 per cent. It’s beyond doubt that this decline has been caused by humans.” The study pinpointed five major factors in the rapid decline of nearly 4000 species between 1960 and 2000; they are the human behavior of: climate change, pollution, the destruction of animals’ natural habitat, the spread of invasive species, and the overexploitation of species.

A case in point can be seen in the Yangtze River dolphin that scientists have been searching for and have been unable to locate any of the species, they now believe it is extinct. Some of the reasons for its rapid decline are; collisions with boats, habitat loss and pollution. All of these factors are man made in origin.

James Leape, who is the director of WWF (World Wide Footprint) said; “Reduced biodiversity means millions of people face a future where food supplies are more vulnerable to pests and disease and where water is in irregular or short supply… No one can escape the impact of biodiversity loss because reduced global diversity translates quite clearly into fewer new medicines, greater vulnerability to natural disasters and greater effects from global warming. The industrialized world needs to be supporting the global effort to achieve these targets, not just in their own territories where a lot of biodiversity has already been lost, but also globally.”

Unfortunately there is coming a time in the not so distant future when the very survival of life on earth will be at stake. If we continue to overuse all of our resources like a virus consumes its host until its very source of survival is gone, we will eventually be destroyed right along with the very planet that is the true source of our substance and life force. According to the Tao (The Way of Nature and the Universe), we can not continue to abuse, overuse and rip the earth of her elements and natural resources faster than earth can replace them and expect all things to remain in balance. This is common sense logic and also the universal laws of balance, yin and yang, light and shadow, male and female, etc.

The power of earth’s magnetic field has decreased significantly in the past 100 years or so. Much of this can again be blamed on mans’ activities. You would not normally think it, but the laying of world wide power lines, the explosion of wireless communication devices including satellites beaming information to and from orbit are all affecting the earth’s magnetic field, including it’s very power.

All our foods get part of their energies, their life sustaining chi from a combination of earth (yin/water) and the sun (yang/fire). If we weaken one, the other is thrown out of balance. We already know that due to acid rain, overuse of the land, pesticides and other factors that the mineral content of the soil is dangerously low. I’ve written before that approximately 2/3 of the earth’s tillable soil is completely devoid of Selenium, a vital trace element and power mineral required not only for the production of SOD (Superoxide Dismutase) but also one that is a powerful immune booster, cancer fighter and longevity mineral too, that most people have virtually no selenium in their diet which is another great reason to make sure that you’re taking the true RDA of 200mcg per day. Eating just three Brazil nuts a day gives approximately 200mcg, or you can take a supplement of Selenium daily.

No matter the mineral content of any food, what gives all foods their true power to heal and sustain life is not their pure vitamin, mineral or chemical compounds or make up themselves, it is the specific type and amount of chi (life force) in those elements and foods that are their real power to sustain life and heal. That is why chemical drugs can and never will be equal to the medicines that God’s earth provides, because science has no belief in or ability to manipulate or use chi. Science doesn’t even acknowledge that it exists as the Chinese and other Asian and ancient cultures have stated for millennia, but it surely does exist.

The more we allow and contribute to the destruction of life’s incredibly diverse life forms, the more we are killing ourselves in a very slow way. We are tied to the earth in an unbreakable way, but mankind with his technological know how thinks that “I know better than nature itself”… never! Even a great many of the drugs that man thinks that he “invented”, up to nearly half of them he learned how to make by chemically synthesizing the active ingredients from various plants, herbs and other natural compounds. Herbs and other life saving medicines are constantly being destroyed, all in the name of the greed of a worldwide collection of billionaires who can’t wait to get richer and richer so they can beat their friends’ yearly and lifetime earnings, and corporations who only care about their stock prices on the world market and more. They truly believe and live by the motto: “The person who dies with the most toys, wins!” That is their religion, their mantra and money is their god. How sad for the world and all the rest of us who live on this planet. These people are truly insane and drunk with power and greed and it seems as though they could care less if the entire earth is destroyed and all human and animal life on it is eradicated, as long as they die with the most money and toys to beat their other billionaire friends, that’s all that seems to matter at all to them.

Many prophecies, including those found in the Bible, mention a time when the earth will be ravaged by so much wars, death, disease, greed, destruction and mans’ inhumanity against man and his very environment itself that he will be brought to the very brink of annihilation unless God Himself steps in to stop it. Here it is starting right before our eyes, but everyone is just so busy having their fun, making their money and going on with their lives that most people, especially those in power and responsible, could care less to stop it or change their high flying, jet setting lifestyles for something that to them is a long way off or likely will never even happen, at least not in their lifetimes.

The destruction of earth’s environment, our food supply as well as the weakening of earth’s magnetic field or chi are reasons why practicing energy medicine and learning to cultivate one’s own chi through the breathing and meditative practices of Chi-gung are so important today, probably more so than at any other time in human history. To learn to increase our own protective chi field called Wei Chi that surrounds our body, as well as increase our overall chi levels and flow within the body will greatly help us to recover and make up for the chi and energy that we’re not getting from our foods or even the earth itself. Organic food has more nutrients and chi than conventional food and that’s one thing we all need to eat much more of. Organic foods also help slow down the rate of destruction of the earth’s ecosystem as does eating more locally grown foods too. Taking supplements is another way to help keep ourselves healthy since we have to make up for the nutrients that our diets can no longer supply.

But even these are secondary actions compared to the most vital and important source of our life, the primary source of all life, our chi. It is only through breathing and meditation that we can truly build up and extract many times the chi that we used to be able to get just by eating natural foods and breathing in times past. Even the oxygen content of the air is about 25% less than it was just 200 years ago. Due to the destruction of plankton in the earth’s oceans which makes up about 60% of the oxygen on earth, deforestation as well as all of mans’ pollution has contributed to lessen the amount of oxygen and sunlight available to us (and our crops) with each breath that we take. This is why practicing deep breathing techniques such as the 8 Pieces of Brocade, Tai chi, and other energy work exercises and learning to use our minds through true meditation to build up and extract even more chi from the earth and universe, has never been more important than at this most critical time in earth’s history.

In time through these ancient and powerful techniques we can greatly increase the amount, the flow, the balance and the strength of our life force flowing through and around our bodies, thus helping to protect our health and stave off illness and disease in a powerful way. They take work, but in order to remain healthy, vibrant and strong in these times they are very necessary and effective. Proven through thousands of years of practice by the fighting monks, martial artists and traditional doctors of China, practicing chi-gung and careful attention to diet and nutrition are becoming ever more necessary in today’s ever more polluted environment.

With the abysmal failures of the western slash and burn methods of surgery and drugs to prevent illness, learning to cultivate and use the true source of one’s own life force via the vehicle of various chi-gung techniques and exercises to increase your own store of chi within the body, is really one of the best methods and options that exist in the world today. The Chinese have given mankind a great gift in the form of its incredible repertoire of Chi-gung techniques and understanding of the human energy systems through Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). They are only proving themselves over and over again in this modern age as they continue to succeed in restoring and maintaining people’s health time and time again where western medicine has repeatedly failed.

This is especially true as we see the rate of both the destruction of the earth itself and its tens of millions of species occurring at an ever increasing rate. It is for this and many other reasons that I am producing my own health video to teach a number of these breathing and meditative techniques, including proper physical training, nutrition and more on my Chinese Health and Fitness video. If you can, learn all that you are able to about chi, Chinese and natural medicine, energy work, meditation, nutrition and natural health and healing, since they are our best bet to restore and protect our health and those of our loved ones as the world gets more and more polluted. Moreover, the energy that they teach you to use is all provided free of charge by the very universe and earth itself with no hidden fees and no side effects… other than good health and long life that is.

Recommended reading:

“Harnessing the Power of the Universe” by Daniel Reid

“The Complete Book of Chinese Health and Healing” By Daniel Reid

“The Root of Chinese Qigong” by Dr. Yang Jwing-Ming

“Awaken Healthing Energy Through The Tao” by Mantak Chia

Source Article: ((http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen…)

About the author

Rich Stacel is a natural health, Qigong and Chinese martial arts practitioner for over twenty four years. Having read scores of books on Chinese medicine, health, nutrition, supplements, meditation, martial arts, healing, science, astronomy, physics, Einstien, general health and more. Rich has helped numerous people achieve their health and fitness goals over the years. Rich is also interested in health freedom including spreading truth on health, fitness, spiritual truths and more. You can learn more about breathing, meditation, what foods to eat, avoid, food additives, chi-gung as well as get more info about his upcoming Chinese health video at www.chinesehealthandfitness.com

He spoke after oil prices set a new record on 13 consecutive days over the past two weeks. They have now multiplied sixfold since 2002, compared with the fourfold increase of the 1973 and 1974 “oil shock” that ended the world’s long postwar boom.

Goldman Sachs predicted last week that the price could rise to an unprecedented $200 a barrel over the next year, and the world is coming to terms with the idea that the age of cheap oil has ended, with far-reaching repercussions on their activities.

Dr Salameh, director of the UK-based Oil Market Consultancy Service, and an authority on Iraq’s oil, said it is the only one of the world’s biggest producing countries with enough reserves substantially to increase its flow.

Production in eight of the others — the US, Canada, Iran, Indonesia, Russia, Britain, Norway and Mexico — has peaked, he says, while China and Saudia Arabia, the remaining two, are nearing the point at of decline. Before the war, Saddam Hussein’s regime pumped some 3.5 million barrels of oil a day, but this had now fallen to just two million barrels.

Dr Salameh told the all-party parliamentary group on peak oil last month that Iraq had offered the United States a deal, three years before the war, that would have opened up 10 new giant oil fields on “generous” terms in return for the lifting of sanctions. “This would certainly have prevented the steep rise of the oil price,” he said. “But the US had a different idea. It planned to occupy Iraq and annex its oil.”

Chris Skrebowski, the editor of Petroleum Review, said: “There are many ifs in the world oil market. This is a very big one, but there are others. If there had been a civil war in Iraq, even less oil would have been produced.”

David Strahan: What happens next? The expert’s view

At just under 86 million barrels per day, global oil production has, essentially, stagnated since 2005, despite soaring demand, suggesting that production has already reached its geological limits, or “peak oil”.

Recession in the West may not provide relief on prices. There is increasing demand from countries such as China, Russia and the Opec countries, whose consumers are cushioned against rising prices by heavy subsidies. The future could unfold in a number of ways:

Oil price collapses

Fuel subsidies could suddenly be scrapped, dousing demand. Cost pressures have forced Malaysia, Indonesia and Taiwan to cut them, but China is hardly strapped for cash. Opec producers are under no pressure to abolish subsidies; as the oil price rises they get richer. Prospect: very unlikely.

Peace could break out in Iraq, the long-disputed oil law agreed, and international oil companies start work on the world’s largest collection of untapped oil fields. Prospect: vanishingly unlikely.

Oil price stabilises or moderates

Deep recession in the West might cut oil consumption enough to offset growth in the developing world and Opec, or even engulf them too, softening prices. Prospect: unlikely in the short term.

Oil price soars

Russian oil output has gone into decline; Saudi Arabia has shelved plans to expand production capacity, and advisers to the Nigerian government predict its output will fall by 30 per cent by 2015. More news like this, expect oil at $200 a barrel. Prospect: likely.

Big oil producers will increasingly divert exports for home consumption. Opec, Russian and Mexican exports expected to fall, pushing oil to $200 by 2012. Prospect: highly likely.

The writer is author of ‘The Last Oil Shock’, John Murray, lastoilshock.com

Peak oil

After 150 years of growth, the oil age is beginning to come to an end. “Peak oil” is the common term for when production stops increasing and starts to decline. At that point what have been ever-expanding and cheap supplies of the resource on which all modern economies depend become scarcer and more expensive, with potentially devastating consequences.

Pessimists believe that production has passed its peak. Optimists say it may be 20 years or so away — which would give us some time to prepare — but are now muted. Last week the hitherto optimistic International Energy Agency admitted that it may have overestimated future capacity. Chris Skrebowski, editor of ‘Petroleum Review’ and once an optimist himself, believes that the world is now in “the foothills of peak oil”. Prices may ease a bit over the next few years, but then the real crunch will come. The price then? “Pick a number!”

Travel

Oil provides 95 per cent of the energy used in transport, so this will be hit hard and soon. People are likely to go on using their cars, but airlines are expected to be the first to suffer. On Thursday, British Airways’ chief executive Willie Walsh declared that the era of cheap flights was over, suggesting that those environmentalists who have made them their main target for combating climate change may have been wasting their breath.

At least three carriers have already gone bust this year. Last week, American Airlines said it was cutting routes, laying off staff, and charging US passengers $15 to check in a bag because of a $3bn rise in its fuel bills. Even Michael O’Leary, chief executive of Ryanair, says the oil price is “really hurting”. On Thursday, Credit Suisse analysts said his company would slip into the red if oil prices rose just a little more, to $140 a barrel.

Cars

The world’s biggest oil well, it is said, lies beneath Detroit. US vehicles get an average of only 25 miles per gallon. Dramatically improving this would do more to ease the oil crunch than any likely new discovery. But new measures recently approved by Congress would increase the average only to the 35mpg already being achieved by China. Europe does better, if not well enough, at 44mpg.

Rising fuel prices are already beginning to drive change. Sales of 4×4s are plummeting in both the US and Britain, and those of hybrids — which do 60mpg are soaring. As the price climbs further, manufacturers will unlock long-prepared plans for much more efficient vehicles. “Plug-in” hybrids, charged up with electricity overnight, save another 45 per cent in petrol consumption. Further down the line is the “hypercar” — made of tough, light plastic — which could cross the US on a single tankful.

Houses

All new houses in Britain will have to be zero carbon — burning no fossil fuels such as oil — by 2016, the Government announced, and housebuilders are struggling to meet the target. At present the standard can be reached only at great expense, but the industry is confident of bringing the cost down as mass production kicks in. It is even more important to adapt existing homes.

The key step is to super-insulate the house to make it as energy-efficient as possible — and only then to provide renewable energy sources. Solar water heaters, ground source heat pumps and boilers powered by wood pellets are favourites. Rooftop windmills do not work well enough yet. Photovoltaic panels, which get electricity from the sun, are expensive but their price should come down. Britain has lagged behind other countries. Soaring energy prices should shake things up.

Shopping

Effectively, almost everything is partially made of oil, and so is going to get more expensive. About 10 calories of oil are burned to produce each calorie of food in the US, and farming a single cow and getting it to market uses as much as driving from New York to Los Angeles. Some 630g of fuel is used to produce every gram of microchips.

The cult of local, seasonal produce will enter the mainstream, as everyone learns about food miles and a modern-day Dig for Victory grips gardeners — bad news for the farm workers overseas who provide 95 per cent of our fruit and half our vegetables. Trips to out-of-town supermarkets will seem extravagant, heralding a high street renaissance and a new surge in online grocery shopping, and soon we’ll all be eating our own potatoes.

Third World

Poor countries and their peoples will be hit by a devastating double whammy as both their fuel and food prices increase. Last year, when oil cost only about half as much, countries from Nepal to Nicaragua were hit by fuel shortages. At least 25 of the 44 sub-Saharan nations are facing crippling electricity shortages.

As oil is used in agriculture, its increased cost will also drive up the price of food, making more and more people go hungry. Worse, expensive petrol is bound to increase the drive towards biofuels made from maize and other crops, which then brings the world’s poorest people into competition with affluent motorists for grain — a contest they cannot win. Just one fill-up of a 4×4’s tank with ethanol uses enough grain to feed one person for a year.

Emerging economies

China and India and other developing countries will help to drive up demand for oil and compete for scarce supplies. This has already helped to raise prices: demand for oil from Western countries has actually fallen over the past two years, but the emerging economies have more than made up the slack. And they have the money to do so.

Chinese and Indian consumers have so far been insulated from the effects of the price increase by heavy government subsidies, and their industrial revolutions and rapid growth are largely fueled by oil. There is little sign that the growth in demand will slacken These countries are also likely to follow the time-honored Western tradition of making deals with oil-exporting countries — and backing unpleasant regimes — to try to secure supplies.

NaturalNews

Concerns from reducing pollution, greenhouse gases, energy consumption, and the burden on our landfills, to protecting our increasingly scarce water supply, plants and animals from extinction, and against serious threats to human health, have risen on the list of public interests causing many more people to “go green”. There are simple but meaningful actions people can take to save our planet for future generations including choices to recycle, composting, using energy efficient light bulbs, or using barrels to collect rainwater.

Consequently, over the last year one reason gardening is witnessing tremendous growth nationwide is because people who love fresh food are reducing environmental costs of mass-producing and shipping food all over the globe by drastically reducing “food miles” and simply choosing to grow their own. With this culinary trend towards fresh, local cuisine one knows exactly what they are serving and eating. Among the numerous reasons more than 70 million US gardeners grow their own fruit, veggies, and herbs includes reasons for health, to save money, to teach children, and to share.

Another enormous dilemma in America is our growing hunger plight. According to a 2007 USDA report, over 35 million Americans experienced food insecurity in 2006. In other words, there are tens of millions of Americans including over 12 million children who are not sure when or where their next meal will come from. Our nation’s largest charitable hunger relief organization, Second Harvest reported in “Hunger in America 2006″ over 25 million Americans depend on emergency food services annually with the hardship currently exploding.

Many food banks struggle to meet the need for food assistance to the point where now they only serve people living within their zip code area. By 1995 to contend with this ever-growing predicament, the Garden Writers Association (GWA) launched their Plant a Row (PAR) program (http://www.gardenwriters.org/Par/index.html) encouraging gardeners to donate their extra produce to food banks and local soup kitchens serving the homeless and hungry. Wherever a local Committee exists, the GWA PAR program provides direction, training support, and materials for businesses, church groups, home gardeners, schools, and youth and community organizations making a difference in their community for their neighbors. Through their simple people-helping-people approach they have made a significant impact on reducing hunger. In 2005 mainly through the media, GWA PAR efforts provided, without government subsidies or bureaucratic red tape, more than 1.5 million pounds of fresh produce to over 5.5 million hungry recipients. Throughout the U.S. and Canada their total donations have reached nearly 10 million pounds.

If these reasons don’t persuade your interest in gardening, take into account the quandary we are in two different wars and our soldiers are returning home daily. During World War I and World War II private residence gardens provided up to 40% of the vegetable produce consumed thereby reducing the strain on the food supply. Such devotion doesn’t exist now. Are you aware the Veterans Health Administration confirms an average 126 veterans per week for a total of 6,552 veterans per year are committing suicide? Sorrowfully there are about 18 veterans suicides per day, which hasn’t happened in previous wars. Imagine after war coming home with health and psychological problems to unemployment, high prices, and a non-responsive government. Consider welcoming home your local returning weary vet by donating a row of garden produce to assist them as they re-assimilate.

Some seed companies have even stepped up to meet some of these types of community needs by donating seeds to qualifying organizations. Two examples of companies with seed donation programs are Seeds of Change ((http://www.seedsofchange.com/donations/…) and Park Seed ((http://click.linksynergy.com/fs-bin/cli…) .

Interestingly, there is even a Victory Gardens organization in Oregon specifically devoted to supplying untreated, organically grown or certified organic open-pollinated and heirloom seeds (http://www.victoryseeds.com/TheVictoryGarden/) .

With all the supplies and options available, gardening is much easier today. Between the Internet, the local County Extension Agencies, and gardening supply businesses, a plethora of information is available to make your 2008 gardening endeavors great. Gardeners contribute to saving the planet for our children, future generations, and us. So whether you are motivated by concerns about the environment, feel a civic duty, just want to share with your neighbors, need a new hobby, teaching children, or whatever your impulse might be, pick up some seeds and supplies and Happy Gardening!

David Gutierrez

“With the winds blowing in and the currents in the gyre going circular, it’s the perfect environment for trapping,” said Marcus Eriksen, director of research and education at the Algalita Marine Research Foundation in Long Beach, Calif. “There’s nothing we can do about it now, except do no more harm.”

According to Chris Parry, public education program manager for the California Coastal Commission in San Francisco, the garbage patch has been growing tenfold every decade since the 1950s. This corresponds with an equivalent increase in worldwide ocean debris.

The debris is highly dangerous to ocean life. Birds and marine animals may injure themselves by swallowing hard, indigestible shards of plastic. Animals like sea turtles, which mistake plastic bags for jellyfish, may also eat plastic that is less immediately harmful but just as fatal in the long term.

“These animals die because the plastic eventually fills their stomachs,” said Warner Chabot, vice president of the Ocean Conservancy. “It doesn’t pass, and they literally starve to death.”

Plastic, which is synthesized from petroleum, can persist for decades before beginning to degrade, making it nearly impossible to get rid of once it is produced.

Parry and Chabot agree that the best way to keep the Great Pacific Garbage Patch from growing is to reduce production of plastic waste and use fewer plastic products at the consumer level as well.

“What we can do is ban plastic fast food packaging,” Chabot said, “or require the substitution of biodegradable materials, increase recycling programs and improve enforcement of litter laws.”

BBC News

Burma has declared Irrawaddy and four other regions, including the main city Rangoon, to be disaster areas.

Rangoon has been without power and water, its streets full of debris.

Winds of about 190km/h (120mph) battered the Irrawaddy, Rangoon, Bago, Karen and Mon regions.

The latest death toll of 351 includes at least 109 people who lived on Haing-gyi island, off the south-west coast, officials say.

About 20,000 homes have been destroyed and 90,000 people made homeless on the island alone, a government official said.

The death toll is expected to rise further, as the situation is remote areas becomes clear.

Military and police personnel have been carrying out rescue operations.

In Irrawaddy’s Labutta township, 75% of buildings collapsed and 20% had their roofs ripped off, state TV said.

Cyclone Nargis has since moved towards Thailand where storm warnings have been issued. However, it appears to be lessening in force.

In Rangoon, internet and phone connections have been down since the storm drew near, making it difficult to confirm the extent of the damage.

Official media report that four people were killed and four vessels sank in the former Burmese capital’s harbour.

One Rangoon resident described the damage in the city for the BBC Burmese service: “Everything was wrecked. Roofs of the houses and satellite dishes were blown away.”

A Rangoon-based diplomat quoted by Reuters news agency described the city as an “utter war zone”.

Anthony Craig, a regional official of the UN World Food Programme based in Thailand, said that judging from the damage caused to solid buildings in Rangoon, damage elsewhere was likely to be extensive.

“We’re seeing a lot of trees down, a lot of billboards blown away, roofs of houses gone, so that is worrying when you consider the type of construction that is there, compared to the type of construction that is elsewhere,” Mr Craig told the BBC.

A trishaw driver in Rangoon, who did not want to be identified, complained that the security forces were not doing enough to help.

“Where are all those uniformed people who are always ready to beat civilians?” he asked.

“They should come out in full force and help clean up the areas and restore electricity.”

The US president said modified crops offered a ­partial solution to the food crisis gripping some parts of the world because of their high yields and resistance to drought and disease.

“These crops are safe,” he said, “and they hold the promise of producing more food for more people.”

The remarks came as Mr Bush proposed a fresh $770m (€498m, £390m) in food aid, in addition to the $200m in emergency aid announced two weeks ago.

If approved by Congress, the funds would increase total US food aid this year to $2.3bn, up from $2.1bn last year.

“We’re sending a clear message to the world: that America will lead the fight against hunger for years to come,” said Mr Bush.

Global food prices have increased by 43 per cent over the past year because of soaring demand from developing countries and droughts in Australia and other crop growing countries, according to the White House.

Decreased supply and rising prices have led to food shortages from Haiti to the Philippines.

The White House rejected criticism that its support for the development of ethanol for fuel had contributed to the crisis by increasing pressure on corn supplies.

Officials said that the use of corn to produce ethanol accounted for just 2-3 per cent of the increase in food prices, and a third of the increase in corn prices.

However, the White House acknowledged the need to develop alternative sources of ethanol to reduce pressure on corn supplies – pointing to the $1bn committed for research into the use of grasses, wood chippings and agricultural waste to produce energy.

Dan Price, the US national security adviser for international economic affairs, said that most of the aid would go to Africa, with some of the funds earmarked for technical assistance to help countries grow more food.

He said GM crops would allow poor countries to ­produce larger, more resilient harvests but said restrictions in Europe and elsewhere provided a deterrent to investment in GM crops.

The US last year provided more than $2.1bn of food aid to 78 developing countries, with more than $1.8bn dispersed by Food for Peace, the agency that is the main provider of US food aid to the rest of the world.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

Though largely unnoticed by the world media, a decisive moment in the peak oil debate came last September, when James Schlesinger declared that the “peakists” were right. You don’t get closer to the American establishment and energy business than Schlesinger, who has served as chair of the Atomic Energy Commission, head of the CIA, Defense Secretary, Energy Secretary and adviser to countless oil companies. In a speech to a conference sponsored by the Association for the Study of Peak Oil, Schlesinger said, “It’s no longer the case that we have a few voices crying in the wilderness. The battle is over. The peakists have won.” Schlesinger added that many oil company CEOs privately agree that peak oil is imminent but don’t say so publicly.

One who does is Jeroen van der Veer, CEO of Royal Dutch Shell. Without using the term “peak oil,” van der Veer warned in January, “After 2015, easily accessible supplies of oil and gas probably will no longer keep up with demand.”

Of course, peak oil could arrive sooner than 2015; columnist George Monbiot has claimed in the Guardian that a Citibank report calculates the date at 2012. But even 2015 leaves a very short time in which to prepare, because modern societies were built on cheap, abundant oil.

“The world has never faced a problem like this,” warned a 2005 study funded by George W. Bush’s Energy Department. “Previous energy transitions (wood to coal and coal to oil) were gradual and evolutionary; oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary.”

The United States, with its two-hour commutes, three-car families, atrophied mass transit and petroleum-based food system, is most vulnerable to an oil shock. But similar vulnerabilities exist in most industrial societies, not to mention the roaring economies of China and India, where oil consumption is rising faster even than GDP as newly middle-class consumers buy the cars they have long dreamed of.

At first glance, one might think that peak oil would help the fight against climate change. After all, less available oil should translate into less oil consumption and lower greenhouse gas emissions. But modern civilization, to borrow George W. Bush’s term, is addicted to oil. If peak oil arrives before the addiction is treated, the junkie will seek even more dangerous ways to get his fix.

Indeed, this is already happening. In Canada, energy companies are mining so-called tar sands — a mix of sand, water and heavy crude oil that can be refined into usable petroleum. But burning tar sands is about the worst thing to do if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change because the resulting petroleum has a much greater carbon footprint than conventional oil. Currently, a dozen such projects are under way; projects awaiting approval would quadruple the emissions those projects generate. One encouraging sign: in response to a lawsuit filed by Ecojustice, the top federal court in Canada has temporarily blocked a tar sands project proposed by an ExxonMobil subsidiary on climate change grounds. “This is something which will clearly apply to every single oil-sands project that comes before environmental assessment of any kind,” said Sean Nixon, a lawyer for Ecojustice Canada.

More encouragement: some high-level government officials recognize the danger of peak oil and may be contemplating action. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband wants his country to consider creating “a post-oil economy.” New York Governor David Paterson has spoken in detail about the imminence of peak oil and what government can do about it: invest in greater energy efficiency in the short term and new low-carbon energy sources in the medium to long term. Plug-in hybrid cars, for example, can get more than 100 miles per gallon — double that of today’s generation of hybrids. And if the plug-in hybrids rely on electricity generated by solar, wind or other green energy sources, they fight climate change and peak oil at the same time.

Finally, activists in scores of towns and cities around the world are trying to prepare their communities for the transition to a post-oil economy. Rather than wait for national governments and multinational corporations to save them, these ordinary citizens are examining how their communities can produce their own energy, food, buildings and other essentials using local resources rather than materials that arrive from afar via oil-based transport. “Economic relocalization will be one of the inevitable impacts of the end of cheap transportation fuels,” argues peak oil theorist Richard Heinberg. In Britain this movement has taken the form of “transition towns,” which seek, in the words of organizer Rob Hopkins, “to design a conscious pathway down from the oil peak.” Drawing on the experience of his hometown of Totnes, in Devon, Hopkins has just published The Transition Handbook, which explains how other towns can also begin preparing for the post-oil future.

Some of the transition movement’s ideas — printing local currency, forming solar buying clubs, building “cob” houses made of mud — may seem quaint, inconvenient or naïve. But nothing is more naïve than assuming that the endless oil that modern societies grew addicted to over the past fifty years will last forever. The day of reckoning appears imminent, and as Hopkins says, “it is better to plan for it than be taken by surprise.”