I understand your criticism of the report. But it will be a long time before the mainstream says ‘we must reduce population’ (note single quotes…) Population will reduce itself (probably in a not very pleasant way). No amount of pontificating about carrying capacities will affect people’s breeding habits. In the meantime, anything that promotes more sustainable ways of growing must be good surely - especially while the mainstream is often incredibly cynical of organic growing and sees it as some elitist niche. The argument the mainstream makes against organic is that it will lead to worse poverty and hunger because it is perceived that ‘organic = lower yields’. This report comprehensively demolishes that argument. That was the only reason I highlighted it. Simple. All the other stuff on population and peak oil (yawn) is for other discussions. No more comments form me on this post!

What concerns me is how this kind of report explicitly states that there is enough food for everyone if only we distributed it properly. I really dont believe this stands up to analyses- even if it is hypothetically true at this particular snapshot in time, it will not be true in the future.

I also think you are mixing up a lot of different issues, Tom, and it is our job to try to carefully disentangle them to get a more accurate picture.
To start with, I would say that to a large degree in the West Organic food is indeed the preserve of the wealthy- this does NOT mean (as is often claimed) that intensive industrial farming or GM crops are the answer, because they will only make things worse.

What I would like to see is more an emphases on “Grow your Own- it may be the only food you will have available in the future” rather than an over-emphases on “organic” which as it is currently practised is often more energy-intensive per calorie than non-organic (Im not talking peasant farmers in India here).

To answer your points Tom as numbered:
1)Individually of course local organic is better, but given the difficulties of nourishing the world population even with the benefits of fossil fuels, how are we going to do it after Peak Oil?

2)Of course we should do everything we can to start rebuilding soils, that is what permaculture is all about, but the point is, worldwide productive arable land is declining rapidly due to over-exploitation in the past. Much of it is simply turning to desert- we cant just rush in there and save it by practising organic farming!

3)The lowering of the water table by “organic” peasant farmers over the last couple of decades is going to devastate the capacity of tens of millions of people to feed themselves- the practice was made widely available largely by the introduction of cheap Honda water pumps in the 1980s which made the expansion of farming on much marginal land across large parts of India feasible. This has certainly contributed to the growing population there, which cannot now be sustained. The point I am making is precisely that being organic has not in itself made them sustainable- and being organic does not necessarily mean low fossil input.

4)This is very unfair. I never said “organic farming really doesnt matter” and of course this debate has nothing to do with the need to train people in organic techniques. However, my course is primarily about permaculture, which tries to take the broadest view of sustainability and what it really means. Above all else, the real strength of permaculture (rather than just “organics”) is that it tries to join the dots. Feeding the world is not JUST about organics, but I feel that the New Scientist article gives a false and simplistic view of what the issues are between population, land and food. So often this kind of thing translates into dysfunctional policies, while fostering a complacent attitude amongst middle class consumers that they are saving the planet by buying organic Israeli lettuce.

5)I didnt say “we can’t encourage organics it’ll lead to more overpopulation!” I do want to encourage organic production if it is local. To repeat, I wanted to challenge the main thrust of the article that we can feed the current world’s population if we go organic. I really do not think this is the case for reasons already stated.

It is great that you pointed to the research showing that organic small farms can produce more, this is important research; but I object to this being used to make sweeping statements about the carrying capacity of the earth etc..

Right, enough of this, me likewise out to the garden!

http://www.sac.ac.uk/research/newsandevents/news/intensivvefarming/

To counter this we need to encourage people to start farming sustainably. That means organically and locally - reduced dependence on fossil fuels, resilient varieties, more organic matter in soil (reduces CO2 losses) etc.
You seem to be mixing up a lot of issues in your comment. Lets keep it simple.

1. “The current world’s burgeoning population is not very well fed on a diet of fossil-fuels.” I’m not sure what you mean here - the report says we would be better fed by organic food (more calories, better quality). Why make this statement?

2. You say “but the real issue is that the capacity of the land to provide food has been seriously damaged by the last 50 years of industrial farming” so why not start rebuilding those soils?

3. I’m aware of the arguments about water from Fred Pearce’s book, but you’re making a massive generalisation about farming in the Indian sub-continent? It’s a huge area and with education on water harvesting techniques and modern organic methods soils can be improved and organic matter rebuilt. Most Indian farmer’s are already organic. It isn’t fossil fuels that have caused their population explosion!

4. “It is really no good counting up land, calories and population and claiming this or that method of farming can feed the world:” Of course I agree that population is the main problem. And when I’m in cynical mode there’s no point posting anything here because until about 4 billion people disappear we haven’t a hope of saving much in the way of planetary resources… But I guess I was aiming this post at the less radical who might not yet be at the ‘we need a massive population reduction’ stage yet. Encouraging organic growing really can’t hurt! Can it? Why do you teach organic growing on your course if it really doesn’t matter?

5. “the report seems to ignore the fact that grain harvests have peaked in 2002 and stores are at their lowest levle ever- and that is WITH fossil fuels to help.” The report I linked to shows that yields would be higher if the world was organic (small intensive farms). OK, so that in iteself might be a bad thing if it led to higher population - but this is the first time anyone would have said to me - we can’t encourage organics it’ll lead to more overpopulation! Low grain stocks are much more to do with economics, animal feed and distribution than raw growing capacity.

Right - I’m off to pick some salad from the garden…