| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bobbyald
Heavy Crude
Joined: Jan 18, 2005
Posts: 265
Location: London, UK.
|
 Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 10:22 am Post subject: Availability of Arable Land |
  |
|
I found a forecast of the “Availability of Arable Land Per Person” for the year 2025 and thought you may find it interesting.
Before you click the link here are 12 countries I have selected from the 125 listed, see if you can put them in order.
Argentina
Australia
Canada
Egypt
Indonesia
Netherlands
New Zealand
North Korea
Spain
United Kingdom
United States
USSR (former)
http://www.cnie.org/pop/conserving/landuse4b.htm
_________________
Life results from the non-random selection of randomly generated replicators |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
marko
Heavy Crude
Joined: Jan 31, 2005
Posts: 451
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, here is my guess before checking the website. I will start by saying, I assume that "availability" means existence of arable land, rather than acreage likely to be up for sale.
New Zealand
Argentina
Australia
United States
USSR (former)
Canada
Spain
North Korea
United Kingdom
Indonesia
Netherlands
Egypt
I think that I will screw up the thread if I comment on the accuracy of my guess at this point, so I will let other people guess first. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MicroHydro
Light Sweet Crude
Joined: Apr 10, 2005
Posts: 1286
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The numbers don't make any sense for the real world. I believe that this study's definition is that arable = flat.
So Australia looks good on paper, even though most of the land is at best marginal grazing land without irrigation. And the water is running out. And the soil fertility of the interior of this ancient continent is very low.
New Zealand looks bad on paper, because it is so hilly. But, many of those hills are green and provide good grazing. Some of the soils are young, volcanic and fertile.
A better and more informative study would have been food calories produced per capita.
_________________
"The world is changed... I feel it in the water... I feel it in the earth... I smell it in the air... Much that once was, is lost..." - Galadriel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oowolf
Expert
Joined: Nov 09, 2004
Posts: 1227
Location: Big Rock Candy Mountain
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mikela
Tar Sands
Joined: Aug 25, 2004
Posts: 85
Location: West Coast, USA
|
| Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Iceland
New Zealand
Peru
Australia
Brasil
Finland
Columbia
Indonesia
Sweden
Chile
Argentina
Ireland
Malaysia
France
Norway
This is the ranking of nations with ecological surpluses given by the Earth Council in this study, calculated from the difference between per capita ecological capacity and per capacity ecological footprint. I don't know how useful their assumptions are about what is productive land, but it seems to validate New Zealand's remaining per capita capacity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Claudia
Heavy Crude
![]()
Joined: May 26, 2005
Posts: 112
|
| Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow. I'm a dual citizen (Norwegian/American). Maybe I should move back.
Of course, they say global warming may cause the Gulf Stream to slow or even stop, turning Scandinavia into a solid block of ice. That would change that list significantly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shannymara
Master
Joined: Oct 04, 2004
Posts: 5141
Location: Oklahoma
|
| Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mikela wrote: | Iceland
...
This is the ranking of nations with ecological surpluses given by the Earth Council in this study, calculated from the difference between per capita ecological capacity and per capacity ecological footprint. |
Iceland also has all that available geothermal energy going for it, and it is relatively isolated geographically. I think it might make an excellent lifeboat. However, the existence of US military facilities there does compromise the security somewhat. Living in Iceland is expensive, but for the independently wealthy it might be a great place to relocate if you can tolerate the volcanoes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shannymara
Master
Joined: Oct 04, 2004
Posts: 5141
Location: Oklahoma
|
| Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mikela wrote: | | This is the ranking of nations with ecological surpluses given by the Earth Council in this study, calculated from the difference between per capita ecological capacity and per capacity ecological footprint. |
Another interesting thing about that list: The deficit is far worse for the US than for China. -3.6 vs. -0.3 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mikela
Tar Sands
Joined: Aug 25, 2004
Posts: 85
Location: West Coast, USA
|
| Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Shannymara wrote: | | The deficit is far worse for the US than for China. -3.6 vs. -0.3 |
Yeah, but China's per capita ecological footprint is only 1.2, whereas the US's per capita ecological footprint is 10.3! If we all lived like the Chinese we would rank well above China and in fact would be fourth on the list, assuming no one else changes their lifestyles. Of course all of our infrastructure and businesses are founded upon unbridled consumption, and we will never choose to live as meagrely as the Chinese, but still we can probably manage to cut back quite a bit and perhaps even run an ecological surplus. Unfortunately I think it would take a government like the Chinese government for us to significantly reduce our ecological footprint. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
