Energy for Agriculture in the Twenty-first Century

Abstract

Adequate food supplies and a reasonable quality of life require energy —both noncommercial and commercial forms. Energy is a prime mover of economic growth and development. Although the linkages between energy and development are complex and still imperfectly understood, energy undoubtedly fuels economic development. And the developing countries where most of the population growth is occurring face an energy crisis of staggering proportions. An ample energy supply is not an automatic guarantee of smooth economic advancement, social progress, or stability, but it is, indisputably, their essential precondition. The future of our increasingly interdependent world will thus be very much influenced by the success or failure of the developing countries to ensure a sufficient and sustainable flow of energy (Smil and Knowland, 1980). The global inequity in the use of commercial fuels is familiar. About 1.5 billion people live in countries where the per capita consumption is less than 7 gigajoules (GJ) y-1, and another 1.1 billion consume only 7-20 GJ y -. Let’s translate this into more meaningful terms: 7 GJ is the equivalent of about 180 1 of diesel fuel —or about 0.5 1 per day to cover all human needs, such as food production and cooking, shelter, heating, and clothing. Millions and millions of rural inhabitants use virtually no commercial fuel. Clearly, no one can achieve a desirable quality of life (QOL) with so little energy available (Leach, 1979). Many studies have related GNP and energy use, but scholars debate the correlation with QOL. When one considers that energy is required to produce all the basic needs of humans, it seems apparent that a relationship as shown in Figure 5.1 may exist. Morrison (1978) carried this concept a step further by expressing QOL as a function of energy use. At low levels of energy use (quadrant III), he hypothesized that basic need satisfaction is linearly related to energy use. As the amount of energy increases (quadrant II), two paths were hypothesized. Option A projects a linear relationship between QOL and energy use, whereas option B suggests an optimum QOL at a moderately high level of energy use, followed by a deterioration of QOL due to environmental degradation at excessively high energy use rates.